SARA v BALASUBRAMANIAN [1995] NSWCA 417

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

URJ Sara

Appellant

Balasubramanian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to include the full amount of agreed out-of-pocket expenses in the verdict
  2. 2 Nature and effect of the agreement between parties regarding out-of-pocket expenses
  3. 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.