KASLIK v LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED [1991] NSWCA 165

KASLIK y LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY, HANDLEY JJA and Hope AJA 3 May 1991, 17 May 1991 [1991] NSWCA 165

APPEAL AFTER JURY TRIAL — plaintiff claims damages from employer for injury suffered at work — four factual issues before jury on which there was conflicting evidence — jury finds negligence not established — no flaw in summing up by trial judge — case one where properly instructed jury had to resolve question of liability by reference to credibility of witnesses — no ground shown for interference with verdict.

Priestley JA I agree with Hope AJA. Handley JA I agree with Hope AJA.

Hope AJA The plaintiff, Mr Imre Kaslik, sued his employer, Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Limited, to recover damages for the injury to his low back which he claimed he suffered on 29 January 1980 when he was operating a manually powered bending or folding machine in the course of his employment by the defendant. Evidence at the trial was heard over eleven days before Campbell J and a jury, and his Honour summed up on the twelfth day. The jury returned a verdict in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed, seeking a new trial of his action.

The plaintiff and some of his witnesses did not speak English adequately or at all, and gave their evidence through an interpreter. Likewise some of the defendant's witnesses gave their evidence through an interpreter. At the trial, both parties were represented by counsel, and it would appear that the original notice of appeal filed in the proceedings was drawn by a lawyer. Later an amended notice of appeal was filed which appears to have been drawn by someone who was not a lawyer. However, the grounds are not in substance very different from the grounds which were specified in the original notice of appeal. The grounds in the amended notice are: