24 Feb 2022
Conviction quashed because the prosecution failed to prove the necessary causal link between the alleged fault (consumption of MDMA causing sleepiness) and the objectively dangerous driving; absent expert evidence it was not open to infer MDMA-induced sleepiness as the causal fault relied on by the Judge.
14 Dec 2020
On the judge's factual findings the collision could have been caused by the cyclist unlawfully overtaking on the left at speed and the Crown did not exclude the reasonable possibility the appellant drove reasonably; therefore the conviction could not be sustained beyond reasonable doubt and was quashed with an acquittal.
3 Dec 2020
The trial judge's findings that the victim was visible and that the appellant failed to take additional precautions at a compulsory stop given known lighting limitations were supported by evidence; no error of law or miscarriage of justice was shown on appeal; and the judge correctly applied the s107 proportionality test so the refusal to discharge without conviction was appropriate.
30 Jun 2020
Summary judgment was dismissed because the negligence and contract claims raise contested factual issues (including interpretation of the defendant's statements, causation and loss), require expert evidence on the relevant professional standard, and face arguable limitation and causation defences, making the matter unsuitable for summary disposition.
13 Jun 2019
Leave was granted because the High Court found it was seriously arguable the District Court applied a negligence/reasonable care test rather than the Court of Appeal's Adlam test (observable indications/departure from standard) in respect of failure to refer and that the District Court may have misapplied the balance of probabilities in assessing causation; these legal issues are sufficiently arguable to warrant appeal.
6 May 2019
The conviction was upheld because reliable eyewitness testimony corroborated by photographs and damage allowed the inference that the appellant, while filtering, proceeded past stationary traffic without ensuring the road ahead was clear; that failure met the objective test for careless driving and there was no miscarriage of justice under s 232(2)(b).
31 Jul 2018
The High Court held the District Court erred by narrowing the Council's duty to mere inspection and maintenance; the correct duty required the Council, as landowner with known hazardous over-mature Lombardy poplars, to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimise the risk to neighbouring property. Applying an objective reasonable authority standard given the known risks, the Council breached that duty by failing to undertake periodic internal testing or phased felling despite expert reports and the omission was a factual cause of Plaza's damages of $63,577.72.
23 Mar 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the respondents had the appellant's consent to enter and maintain the common boundary drain and the evidence, including expert reports, did not establish a material departure from accepted best practice or a breach of duty causing the alleged damage; expert reports produced years later could not be taken as defining the contemporaneous conditional limits of consent.
1 Mar 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the Court accepted the trial judge's factual findings that the crop was over-mature and lignified which caused machine failures and necessitated a reasonable industry-recognised 'mow, rake, lift' workaround; the defendant's obligation was limited to exercising the skill of a reasonably competent silage contractor and he did not breach that duty; therefore the respondent was not liable for the claimed losses.
23 Feb 2018
The Committee and Tribunal were entitled to conclude the agent's errors were short, inadvertent and immaterial; the appellant failed to prove causation between the delays and her unsuccessful tender and accordingly the conduct did not meet the statutory threshold for unsatisfactory conduct under s72; the appeal is dismissed.