New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : KOSA v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW [2001] NSWCA 397 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 41068/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 2 November 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 November 2001 PARTIES : MARGARET KOSA v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Sheller JA; Mathews AJA LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 7247/98 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Downs ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER : COUNSEL : Appellant: C K Stewart Respondent: D P O'Dowd SOLICITORS : Appellant: A S Margiotta Respondent: Gillis Delaney Brown CATCHWORDS : Appeal - short form reasons - no error by trial judge - sufficiency of trial judge's reasons. (ND) DECISION : Dismissed with costs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 41068/00 MASON P SHELLER JA MATHEWS AJA Friday 2 November 2001 Margaret KOSA v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT 1 MASON P: The hearing of this appeal proceeded subject to a foreshadowed challenge to the competency of the appeal. It is unnecessary to resolve that matter. We have proceeded on the basis that the appeal was competent. 2 The Court orders that the appeal is dismissed with costs. The Court is of the unanimous opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle. Pursuant to s 45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, the Court's reasons for the decision in short form are as follows. 3 The appeal re-agitates the issues dealt with by Downs ADCJ. The Court sees no error in his Honour's reasons. All but one of the grounds relied upon by the appellant relate to findings of fact which were amply supported by the evidence before his Honour. The complaint that Downs ADCJ gave insufficient reasons for preferring the evidence of the respondent's expert to that of the appellant's expert lacks foundation. A judge does not have to address the minutiae of each argument put before him or her, so long as the reasons for preferring one version over the other are sufficiently exposed. They were so exposed in this case. ************ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.