Skip to content

Appeals on apportionment March 10, 2020

[77] … As Meagher JA explained in Smith v Zhang [2012] NSWCA 142;  (2012) 60 MVR 525:

“[21] Because the task of apportioning responsibility involves the weighing of a number of considerations and the making of judgments about which minds might reasonably differ, it is well established that appellate courts should not interfere in the absence of some error of principle or of fact or where the apportionment is plainly wrong: British Fame (Owners) v Macgregor (Owners)  [1943] AC 197 at 201; Pennington v Norris [(1956) [1956] HCA 26;  96 CLR 10] at 15-16; Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd  [1985] HCA 34;  (1985) 59 ALJR 492 at 494; Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34;  (2003) 214 CLR 552 at  [84], [157]; Anikin v Sierra [[2004] HCA 64; [2004] HCA 64;  (2004) 79 ALJR 452] at  [50]Nominal Defendant v Rooskov  [2012] NSWCA 43 at [122]– [123], [163].”

Marketform Managing Agency Ltd for and on behalf of the Underwriting Members of Syndicate 2468 for the 2009 Year of Account v Ashcroft Supa IGA Orange Pty Ltd

[2020] NSWCA 36

Related Articles:

Trial judge's duty to give reasons

S. 60 Evidence Act – "in for all purposes"

Allowing an appeal by consent

Administrative Law: No need for a "genuine (medical) dispute" under MACA




Social Media

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid email address.
Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :
Scroll To Top