NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Dyldam Developments Pty Limited v Jones [2008] NSWCA 56
HEARING DATE(S): 6 March 2008, 7 March 2008
JUDGMENT DATE: 8 April 2008
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 2; Basten JA at 77
(1) Dyldam's appeal dismissed with costs. DECISION: (2) Bricklaying's cross-appeal upheld in part. (3) Each party to pay their own costs in relation to Bricklaying's cross-appeal, and the plaintiff to have a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act in respect of his own costs. (4) The parties to bring in Short Minutes to give further effect to this judgment.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – Challenge to findings of fact and primary judge's reasons – Whether reasons disclosed errors or were insufficient. - EVIDENCE – Document tendered at trial which should have been produced earlier on subpoena – inability of other party to test evidence without adjournment – Document rejected pursuant to s135 of the Evidence Act 1995 – Whether danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial or cause undue waste of time. - DAMAGES – Economic loss – Pre-accident tax returns showing low income – Economic loss calculated by primary judge at a rate higher than income for 8 months prior to accident and as shown in the income tax returns – Whether reasons should have been given for disregarding the record of pre-accident earnings.
Civil Liabilities Act 2002 s 13 LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 135 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act (s 318(1)(d))
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
Ainsworth v Burden [2005] NSWCA 174 Andrews v Nominal Defendant (1963) SR(NSW) 110 Bakerland Pty Ltd v Coleridge [2002] NSWCA 30 Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1509 CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67 and 76; 197 CLR 172 Clark [2001] NSWCCA 494; 123 A Crim R 506 Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1997) 41 NSWLR 389 CASES CITED: Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517 Giorginis v Kastrati (1988) 49 SASR 371 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Ordukaya v Hicks [2000] NSWCA 180 Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297 R v Suteski [2002] NSWCCA 509; 56 NSWLR 182 Suvaal v Cessnock City Council [2003] HCA 41; (2003) 200 ALR 1; 77 ALJR 1449 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
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