The Nominal Defendant v Richards & Anor [2001] NSWCA 367

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : The Nominal Defendant v Richards & Anor [2001] NSWCA 367 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40014/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 08/10/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 October 2001

PARTIES : The Nominal Defendant v Toni Richards & Rodney Craig Busbridge JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Hodgson JA at 2; Ipp AJA at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 816/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Delaney DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

H J Halligan/J H Gibson (Appellant) COUNSEL : No Appearance (Respondent 1) R Royle (Respondent 2) D McLachlan SOLICITORS : Garard Malouf & Partners (Respondent 1) Blake Dawson Waldron (Respondent 2) CATCHWORDS : MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accidents Act 1988, s 28 - whether trial judge erred in concluding that identity of vehicle not established. ND LEGISLATION CITED : Motor Accidents Act 1988 DECISION : (1) The Nominal Defendant to re-list the appeal after having given notice of the application for the amendment to the Notice of Appeal to the first respondent and serving a copy of these reasons upon the first respondent (2) At the resumed hearing the application for amendment to the Notice of Appeal will be determined and argument can take place in first respondent's presence as to the orders that should be made in regard to the resolution of the appeal (including orders, if any, relating to restitution of any monies paid pending the new trial) in the light of these reasons (3) If parties are unable to agree on orders to be made they should bring in short minutes of orders within 21 days.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL