NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : BRADSTREET v RAHME & Anor [2001] NSWSC 141 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11096/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 02/03/2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 March 2001
Michael Edward BRADSTREET - Plaintiff PARTIES : Maurice RAHME - 1st Defendant GIO Workers' Compensation (NSW) Limited - 2nd Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1
LOWER COURT Local Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 569 of 1997 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Mr C Elliott, Magistrate JUDICIAL OFFICER :
M Dicker - Plaintiff COUNSEL : M Rollinson - 1st Defendant R Seton - 2nd Defendant Connery & Partners - Plaintiff SOLICITORS : Teakle, Ormsby, George - 1st Defendant Hunt & Hunt - 2nd Defendant CATCHWORDS : Verdict - whether evidence to support - Verdict - whether failure to give reasons vitiates - Assessment of damages - whether evidence to support - Assessment of damages - whether failure to give reasons vitiates Justices Act 1902, s 109 LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 1987, s 61 Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970, s 69 Workers' Compensation Act 1987, s 151Z Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 CASES CITED : Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 DECISION : See paragraph 28.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Tuesday, 13 March 2001
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate