THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT v ARIDA [1989] NSWCA 209

THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT v ARIDA [1989] NSWCA 209

The trial judge's findings as to the plaintiff's discharge of the onus with respect to negligence, as well as the assessment of damages, were not shown to be in error or unreasonable; appellate intervention was not justified.

Parties
Appellant: The Nominal Defendant; Respondent: Arida
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Onus of Proof, Contradictory Evidence, Quantum of Damages, Future Economic Loss
Negligence Damages Onus of Proof Contradictory Evidence Quantum of Damages Future Economic Loss

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Nominal Defendant

Appellant

Arida

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of establishing negligence against the Nominal Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the assessment of damages for past and future economic loss was inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings as to the plaintiff's discharge of the onus with respect to negligence, as well as the assessment of damages, were not shown to be in error or unreasonable; appellate intervention was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs