Nominal Defendant v Australian Capital Territory [1999] FCA 446

Nominal Defendant v Australian Capital Territory [1999] FCA 446

The appeal was dismissed because the Full Court was entitled to infer error from the magnitude of the Master's apportionment, which placed two-thirds of responsibility on the Australian Capital Territory and stood outside the range of a sound discretionary judgment. The Full Court was in a position to substitute its own apportionment, and its conclusion that the motorist's conduct was the more operative and culpable cause, resulting in a 25 percent contribution by the Territory and 75 percent by the Nominal Defendant, was open and disclosed no error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal Against Judgment Setting Aside the Master's Apportionment of Responsibility in Contribution Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['joint Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Responsibility and Damages' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'negligence' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Judgment']
['torts' 'appeals' 'civil Procedure'] ['joint Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Responsibility and Damages' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'negligence' 'appellate Review of Discretionary 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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal Against Judgment Setting Aside the Master's Apportionment of Responsibility in Contribution Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Full Court of the Supreme Court was entitled to interfere with the Master's apportionment of responsibility between the Nominal Defendant and the Australian Capital Territory." 'Whether the Full Court applied the correct principles in reviewing and substituting an apportionment under s 11 and s 12 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Full Court was entitled to infer error from the magnitude of the Master's apportionment, which placed two-thirds of responsibility on the Australian Capital Territory and stood outside the range of a sound discretionary judgment. The Full Court was in a position to substitute its own apportionment, and its conclusion that the motorist's conduct was the more operative and culpable cause, resulting in a 25 percent contribution by the Territory and 75 percent by the Nominal Defendant, was open and disclosed no error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal to be taxed."]