NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: George Mkari by his Next Friend Youssef Mkari v Daniel Meza [2005] NSWCA 136
HEARING DATE(S): 10/02/05
JUDGMENT DATE: 5 May 2005
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Brownie AJA at 3
DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed. 2.Judgment of the District Court set aside. 3. Order that there be a new trial, before a different judge, limited to damages. 4.Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, but have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if otherwise qualified. 5.The costs of the first trial to be in the discretion of the judge conducting the second trial.
CATCHWORDS: Evidence - Browne v Dunn - No sufficient challenge to evidence eventually not accepted
Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929 LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Act 1988 s79A Suitors' Fund Act 1951
Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 CASES CITED: Digi-Tech (Australia) v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58
APPELLANT George Mkari by his Next Friend Youssef Mkari PARTIES: DEFENDANT Daniel Meza
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40824/03
Mr D Kennedy SC with Mr P Frame - Appellant COUNSEL: Mr I Harrison SC with Mr W Fitzsimmons - Respondent
APPELLANT Keddies SOLICITORS: RESPONDENT Moray & Agnew
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 989/02
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibb DCJ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40824/03 DC 989/02 HANDLEY JA McCOLL JA BROWNIE AJA
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