Sica v Brophy [2020] NSWCA 181

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sica v Brophy [2020] NSWCA 181 Hearing dates: 24 April 2020 Decision date: 20 August 2020 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Payne JA at [2]; McCallum JA at [5] Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs Catchwords: TORTS — Defences — Self-defence — factual contest as to whether elements of defence under s 52 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 established APPEALS — From finding of fact — Credibility of witnesses — where primary judge had advantage of seeing principal witnesses give evidence CIVIL PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — requirement in r 51.36(2) of the UCPR to include a statement setting out the findings of fact challenged and the findings contended for — where appellant's grounds of appeal predominantly challenged primary judge's findings of fact but failed to comply Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 52, 53 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 136 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.36(2) Cases Cited: Dearman v Dearman (2008) 7 CLR 549 at 561; [1908] HCA 84 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479; [1993] HCA 78 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Nominal Defendant v Smith (2015) 73 MVR 257; [2015] NSWCA 339 Owners of Steamship Hontestroom v Owners of Steamship Sagaporack [1927] AC 37 South Western Sydney Local Health District v Gould (2018) 97 NSWLR 513; [2018] NSWCA 69 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Adriano Sica (Appellant) Travis Brophy (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: B Dooley SC, L Katsinas (Appellant) A Williams (Respondent)