NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Herne Investments (NSW) Pty Limited v Don Watson Proprietary Limited [2016] NSWCA 72 Hearing dates: 29 March 2016 Decision date: 13 April 2016 Before: Ward JA at [1]; Sackville AJA at [2]; Garling J at [71] Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Cross-appeal dismissed. 3. The Appellant pay the First and Second Respondents' costs of the appeal. 4. No order as to the costs of the cross-appeal. Catchwords: TORTS – claim for damage to truck – truck in slow lane fails to merge with overtaking lane and collides with guard rail – whether primary Judge erred in finding that truck in overtaking lane was not in breach of duty by not giving way – whether primary Judge failed to give adequate weight to video footage – whether primary Judge erred in finding that driver in slow lane was solely responsible for the accident
COSTS – indemnity costs – whether appellant justified in not accepting offer of compromise Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 92(2)
Road Rules 2008 (NSW), r 148 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.36(2) Cases Cited: Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298; 13 VR 435 Herne Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Don Watson Pty Ltd (District Court (NSW), 27 May 2015, unrep) Herne Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Don Watson Pty Ltd (District Court (NSW), 28 May 2015, unrep) Leach v Nominal Defendant (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) (No 2); [2014] NSWCA 391; 18 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-049 Nominal Defendant v Smith [2015] NSWCA 339 Penrith v East Realisations Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWCA 64; 63 MVR 180 Port Macquarie Hastings Council v Mooney [2014] NSWCA 156; 201 LGERA 314 Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368 Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128; 70 MVR 484 Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Herne Investments (NSW) Pty Limited (Appellant) Don Watson Proprietary Limited (First Respondent) Nathan James Rhodes (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Moses SC / Mr A Parker / Ms R Gall (Appellant) Mr P Deakin QC / Mr AR Davis (Respondents)
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