COX v TUTT [1990] NSWCA 48

COX v TUTT [1990] NSWCA 48

The trial judge was entitled to reject the plaintiff's version on the basis of credibility and demeanour, and the requirement to provide reasons was satisfied by the explanation given. No error justifying appellate intervention was demonstrated.

Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Cox; Defendant/respondent: Tutt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Onus of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses, Reasons for Judgment
Tort Negligence Onus of Proof Credibility of Witnesses Reasons for Judgment

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cox

Plaintiff/appellant

Tutt

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the plaintiff's evidence and preferring the defendant's version of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the judgment failed to provide adequate reasons or disclosed error of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to reject the plaintiff's version on the basis of credibility and demeanour, and the requirement to provide reasons was satisfied by the explanation given. No error justifying appellate intervention was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.