Zivan Petrovic v. Taara Formwalk (ACT) Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 218

Zivan Petrovic v. Taara Formwalk (ACT) Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 218

The refusal of an adjournment to allow the plaintiff to call his psychiatric witness, absent for the genuine and unforeseeable reason of bereavement, so late on a Friday afternoon where her evidence was of central importance to the assessment of damages, was an erroneous exercise of discretion resulting in injustice and necessitating a re-trial on damages.

Parties
Appellant: Zivan Petrovic; Respondent: Taara Formwork (Canberra) Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discretion of Trial Judge, Adjournment, Damages Assessment, Refusal of Adjournment, Admission of Liability
Courts Practice and Procedure Discretion of Trial Judge Adjournment Damages Assessment Refusal of Adjournment Admission of Liability

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zivan Petrovic

Appellant

Taara Formwork (Canberra) Pty. Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment to allow the plaintiff to call a psychiatric witness unavailable due to bereavement
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment to allow the plaintiff to call a lay witness whose need was foreseeable
  3. 3 Whether films not shown in cross-examination could be admitted and used against the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal of an adjournment to allow the plaintiff to call his psychiatric witness, absent for the genuine and unforeseeable reason of bereavement, so late on a Friday afternoon where her evidence was of central importance to the assessment of damages, was an erroneous exercise of discretion resulting in injustice and necessitating a re-trial on damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • There be a new trial of the appellant's action against the respondent limited to the assessment of damages.