TAL v BECK [1996] NSWCA 514

TAL v BECK

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

HANDLEY, COLE and BEAZLEY JJA

13, 14 May 1996

[1996] NSWCA 514

ALLEGATION of bias — unsupported — appellant disregards case requirements.

Abalos v Australian Postal Comission (1990) 171 CLR 167; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission & Anor (1992) 177 CLR 472, .

Handley JA. I agree with Cole JA.

Cole JA. McDevitt DCJ in a careful judgment dated 11 October 1995 awarded the appellant $35,000 general damages, interest thereon of $57,356.25 and accordingly entered judgment in the sum of $92,356.25. His Honour rejected a claim for approximately $1 million for economic loss. He did so having rejected the appellant as a witness on whom he could rely and having accepted the respondent's medical evidence. His Honour found that Mr Tal was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident in July 1981, suffered a mild musculo ligamentous injury to his neck and contusions to his jaw which caused some discomfort until 1982. He suffered no incapacity to work, although he ceased working in 1990.

Thirty two grounds of appeal were lodged. Many of the grounds disregarded entirely the concepts enunciated by the High Court in Abalos v Australian Postal Commission!. and Devries v Australian National Railways Commission2-. No endeavour has been made in the appeal to satisfy the tests there enunciated so as to confer on this Court the right to interfere with the trial judge's decision.

I shall deal with the grounds of appeal in the groupings adopted by Senior Counsel for the appellant.

A THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS GUILTY OF BIAS

At the trial, Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, Mr Hall QC, who also appeared on the appeal, complained regarding certain rulings made by the trial judge. He complained that the defendant had taken steps to retain the matter before McDevitt DCJ. The trial judge raised with Mr Hall whether that constituted an allegation of bias. Mr Hall disclaimed that suggestion drawing a distinction between "bias which may require a judge to disqualify himself" and "a perception in the profession that some judges are more conservative and other judges more generous in their awards of damages". He continued: