DAMJANOVIC v NEW SOUTH WALES EGG CORPORATION [1991] NSWCA 74

DAMJANOVIC v NEW SOUTH WALES EGG CORPORATION

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY JA, CLARKE JA and MEAGHER JA 7 November 1991 [1991] NSWCA 74

Facts: Appeal against injunctions. Evidence at first instance, which was entirely presented by Respondent, was to the effect that Appellant refused to comply with provisions of Egg Industry Act 1983.

Egg Industry Act 1983 November 1989) Butler v The Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board (1966) 114 CLR 189

Galea v New South Wales Egg Corporation (unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 21 Held (per curiam): The Appellant could not demonstrate to the Court any reason in fact or law why the judgment below should be set aside.

Meagher JA. In this matter, Mr Damjanovic appeals against injunctions which were granted against him by Bryson J at the suit of the New South Wales Egg Corporation. The evidence before his Honour was entirely the evidence which the New South Wales Egg Corporation presented, Mr Damjanovic not seizing the opportunity to give evidence on his own behalf. Not surprisingly in those circumstances, his Honour made such findings as flowed from the evidence which was before him.

That evidence is shortly to the effect that Mr Damjanovic perniciously refused to comply with the provisions of the Egg Industry Act 1983.

The appeal as filed has eleven distinct grounds. The written submissions given on behalf of the appellant raise yet further grounds. The written submissions raise a ground that the Egg Industry Act 1983 has been repealed. It is withdifficulty that this submission should be accepted by this Court as the matter was not covered by the grounds of appeal. However, if we do consider it and I think in the exceptional circumstances of the case we should, the point does not assist the appellant.

The same point was taken in Galea v New South Wales Egg Corporation, a decision of this Court, unreported, given on 21 November 1989 which was adverse to the appellant and accordingly the point does not assist the present appellant.