NUNN and ANOR v HIPPI [1994] NSWCA 245

NUNN v HIPPI

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, CLARKE and MEAGHER JJA 10 March 1994, 17 March 1994

[1994] NSWCA 245

JUDGES — reasons — obligation to state — claim for assault, malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment brought against police officer — held: Reasons and findings inadequate — new trial ordered.

JUDGES — reasons — explanation of grounds for decision — claim of assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution brought against policeman and the State — trial judge (McLachlan DCJ) enters judgment for plaintiff for $12,000 — appeal and cross-appeal — complaint by appellant (defendant) that judgment is inconsistent with finding — complaint by cross-appellant (plaintiff) that judge failed to address claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and for exemplary damages and interest — held: (1) The reasons provided did not reveal the grounds for the judge's decision and did not contain adequate findings of fact to permit the Court of Appeal to determine the dispute for itself. Pettitt vy Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 (CA); Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 (CA) applied; (2) Appeal and cross-appeal allowed and retrial ordered.

Kirby P By the law of this State, judicial officers are obliged to support their orders by reasons which adequately expose the grounds for their decision. Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 (CA); Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) e 10 NSWLR 247 (CA).

In the present proceedings, both the appellants (in the appeal) and the respondent, as cross-appellant (in the cross-appeal), complain that the learned trial judge (McLachlan DCJ) did not provide adequate reasons for entering judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $12,000.

The appellants complain that the judgment in the claim of assault is inconsistent with the finding that it was "impossible to decide who threw the first punch". Because no other basis for the judgment has been disclosed, or sufficiently disclosed, the appellants ask for judgment in their favour.