RANKMORE v DRAYTON COAL PTY LTD and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 258

RANKMORE v DRAYTON COAL PTY LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

HANDLEY, BEAZLEY, STEIN JJA 2 September 1997, 2 September 1997

[1997] NSWCA 258

No matter of principle

Stein JA The appellant, Jeffrey Bernard Rankmore, appeals against a decision of Acting Judge Gallen delivered in the District Court on | November 1996.

His Honour entered verdicts for the defendants in the proceedings which were heard together. In each case the appellant had sued for damages for negligence resulting from noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus. He was employed by the respondent Blackwood Hodge Pty Ltd between 2 February 1981 and about April 1982. Although this is said in the evidence to be a period of around 17 months, it seems to be somewhat less. The respondent, Drayton Coal Co Pty Ltd, employed the appellant from August 1983 until 1994, although the period of the claim relates to August 1983 to 30 June 1987.

Bearing in mind that the evidence took four days, the trial judge's reasons for judgment are exceedingly short. So brief are they, that I can conveniently reproduce the whole of his decision which is as follows. He said:

I have examined the evidence that has been taken in this matter and I have come to a number of conclusions; one of them was that the plaintiff was not a reliable witness and I have found it necessary not to accept his evidence; unless it is otherwise corroborated. It seems to me that it is more probable than not that the plaintiff had suffered damage to his hearing long before he became employed by either of the defendants and it is apparent that, in giving his evidence, he exaggerated. His evidence was, on numerous occasions, inconsistent with and in conflict with, other evidence that was put forward in his own case.

The medical evidence does not support the plaintiff's case which, essentially, was that he had suffered damage to his hearing between 1981 and 1987. Even the evidence put forward on behalf of the plaintiff, in the form of Mr Eden's report, does not support the plaintiff's case in some respects and there are, in the end, too many problems to overcome before one could accept that the plaintiff has discharged the onus which he bears.