Sullivan v Gordon (No 2) [1999] NSWCA 472
No new trial on damages was warranted because the claim for damages for care of the appellant's child had been made and resisted at first instance, evidence was called in respect of it, and that was the time for the respondent to challenge the extent of care necessary for the child; the matter had been sufficiently and adequately agitated at first instance.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 December 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Considered on the Papers After Judgment Regarding Whether a New Trial on Damages Should Be Ordered
- Outcome
- No further order
- Legal Topics
- ['damages' 'griffiths V Kerkemeyer Damages' 'loss of Capacity to Care for a Child' 'new Trial' 'issues Raised at First Instance']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Considered on the Papers After Judgment Regarding Whether a New Trial on Damages Should Be Ordered
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a new trial on damages should be ordered if Burnicle v Cutelli [1982] 2 NSWLR 26 was no longer good law in New South Wales in relation to damages on a Griffiths v Kerkemeyer basis for loss of capacity to care for a child.' "Whether the issue of care of the appellant's child had been sufficiently and adequately agitated at first instance."]
Ratio Decidendi
No new trial on damages was warranted because the claim for damages for care of the appellant's child had been made and resisted at first instance, evidence was called in respect of it, and that was the time for the respondent to challenge the extent of care necessary for the child; the matter had been sufficiently and adequately agitated at first instance.
Court Disposition
No further order
Orders
- ['No further order']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment