OBRADOVIC v MAYFAIR FOODS PTY LTD [1989] NSWCA 157

OBRADOVIC v MAYFAIR FOODS PTY LTD [1989] NSWCA 157

There was no agreement between the parties that the transcript from the first trial would not be used. The transcript—or, in these circumstances, its relevant portions—was admissible to show inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony and case presentation between the trials. Even if the admission of the full transcript constituted an error, it was not material and did not occasion substantial wrong; the trial judge's conclusion rested fundamentally on his impression of the applicant's credibility. Accordingly, there was no basis to disturb the award.

Parties
Appellant: Obradovic; Respondent: Mayfair Foods Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 1989
Procedural Posture
Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Compensation Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Prior Inconsistent Statements, Admissibility of Evidence, Worker Credibility, Retrial on Evidentiary Error
Workers' Compensation Evidence Prior Inconsistent Statements Admissibility of Evidence Worker Credibility Retrial on Evidentiary Error

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obradovic

Appellant

Mayfair Foods Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Compensation Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement not to use the transcript of the first trial at the second trial
  2. 2 Whether the admission of the entire transcript of the first trial was erroneous
  3. 3 If so, whether the error warranted setting aside the award and ordering a retrial

Ratio Decidendi

There was no agreement between the parties that the transcript from the first trial would not be used. The transcript—or, in these circumstances, its relevant portions—was admissible to show inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony and case presentation between the trials. Even if the admission of the full transcript constituted an error, it was not material and did not occasion substantial wrong; the trial judge's conclusion rested fundamentally on his impression of the applicant's credibility. Accordingly, there was no basis to disturb the award.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs