SARA v BALASUBRAMANIAN [1995] NSWCA 417
It was a departure from procedural fairness not to include the agreed out-of-pocket expenses in the verdict without notifying the parties or affording them the opportunity to call further evidence; thus the appellant was denied a fair trial and a new trial should be ordered limited to damages.
- Parties
- Appellant: URJ Sara; Respondent: Balasubramanian
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Procedural Fairness, Agreements Between Parties, Damages Assessment, Out of Pocket Expenses, Set Off of Payments, Supplementing Court Record
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
URJ Sara
Appellant
Balasubramanian
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to include the full amount of agreed out-of-pocket expenses in the verdict
- 2 Nature and effect of the agreement between parties regarding out-of-pocket expenses
- 3 Entitlement to fair trial and procedural fairness
Ratio Decidendi
It was a departure from procedural fairness not to include the agreed out-of-pocket expenses in the verdict without notifying the parties or affording them the opportunity to call further evidence; thus the appellant was denied a fair trial and a new trial should be ordered limited to damages.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment of Mahoney DCJ set aside, save as to the order for costs which is confirmed.
- Order that a new trial be had limited to damages.
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