High Court of Australia
iN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BERNARD LAUGHHAN ROONEY ppellant (Plaintif?)
NICHOLAS CHRISTOFORON waGGacIs "Respondent. (Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judgment delivered at— BRISBANE 12th September 1963
ae
WW, Houston, Gort, Print, Meib,
ROONEY
Ve
MaGGacts
S CoeT as JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 0; DELIVERED BY TAYLOR J. CORAM: TAYLOR J. MENZIES J.
OWEN J.
ROONEY
MAGGACTS
Since the adjournment yesterday we have had the opportunity of looking through the whole of the transcript, and we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed.
fo a considerable extent, the judgment from which the appeal is brought rests upon the assessment made by the learned trial judge of the credibility of witnesses whose evidence was very much in conflict on the material issues of fact in the case. We were not asked to reconsider this assessment and, indeed, we do not see any ground upon which it could be said to be open to question.
Further, the evidence which his Honour accepted made the conclusion inevitable that the respondent was not guilty of negligence which caused or contributed to the appellant's injuries.
That being so, the appeal will be dismissed
with costs.
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