Federal Court of Australia
Nes
CATCHBRORDS
Evidence - application for new triad] - wereht of crvidence - circumstantial! evidence outweighing o1al evidence - ssunifreance of failure to call witnesses - whether possibly inadrissible evidence influenced result - admission of exteence vontridicting evidence of party - conduct of case by Statutory insurer soetrary
to wishes of insured
PLIFR KABADANIS v NICK PANAGTOFCU
No. F.
lo] i
of 1497
ws
CORAM: BLACKBURN, ERANKL and alLhLi fT.
DATE. 30 JUNL 1980
CANBLRRA
IN THE FLDLRAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL LERRIIORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
wey Ee LE
a a _ Cc a
me
GENERAL DIVISION
ue
ON APPLAL fiom the Suvrere Ceurt ot
the \ustralian Cupital lerritsrs
BITWILN PYLE KATADANIS
Appellant
AND NICK PANAGIOLOU
Respenuent
ORDI RK
JUDGLS MAKING ORDIR. Blackbuin, krankt and heel. ue. DATL OT ORDER. 30 Jure 198u WHLRF MADI-. Canverta
THL COURT ORDFRS THAT the appeal is Cismissea siti costs
IN THE FLDCRAI COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY Now Fe. Foy dare
woe LL
GENERAL DIVISION
ON APPLAL fiom the supreme Court oo!
the \ustrallan Gaupital Territeiy
BLULLIN PLILR niBABANTS
Aupel tant
AND NICa PaNAGIOPOU
Respondent
CORAM, BLACADURN, FRANK] and AFLTY 7 30 TUN 1986
efroe7
This is an appeal trom i gndowent of the Suureme Cuurt
of the Australian Capital Territory dated 2+ Februers iu7s, dismissing the action by the plaintiff which was a clatm Soar damages tor personal iniuries said t™ have been caused my the negligence of the defendant. 'The plaintiff was ¢ passenger in
a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The plarmtrrrts allegation was that the negligent driving of the motor vehicke
by the defendant caused the discharge of a loaded shotgun which WaS in the vehicle, and thus severely injured the plaintilf. The defence was a traverse of all the allegatiuans in the statenent of claim, and in particular a denial that the platnerfr's tururrves arose out of the use of a motor vehicie. hoa uthes deforees tere uncluded, namely that the plaintiff ani the deieniimt were af al] material times engaycd an a ,oant tdterci erpterprise, and contributor) negligence. Neither oi there tra defences was pressed at the trial. As to the alleveed sornat aitlepal enterprise the trial judge said.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate