//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2002] VSC 449
Supreme Court of Victoria
2002-10-23
BALMFORD J.
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] [1973] VicRp 1; [1973] VR 1 at 11
[2] [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 at 382
[3] [1932] VicLawRp 35; [1932] VLR 237 at 239
[4] [1987] 10 NSWLR 247 at 280
[5] (1996) 40 NSWLR 639 at 642
[6] [1999] 3 VR 834 at 849
[7] (1992) 5 VIR 119 at 123-4
Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd
Girgin [2002] VSC 449
Brittingham v Williams [1932] VicLawRp 35; [1932] VLR 237
Spurling v Development Underwriting Inc [1973] VicRp 1; [1973] VR 1
In the case of decision of magistrates the position in Victoria is well established by a line of decisions culminating in Taylor v Armour and Co. Pty Ltd [1962] VicRp 48; [1962] VR 346, in which the Full Court of this State held that in the case of any question of fact the Court should treat the matter as an appeal from the verdict of a jury and should not make up its own mind upon the evidence but rather confine itself to seeing whether there was evidence upon which the magistrate might, as a reasonable man, come to the conclusion to which he did come. In saying this the Full Court stated that it was following the view of Herring, CJ, in Young v Paddle Bros. Pty Ltd, [1956] VicLawRp 6; [1956] VLR 38; [1956] ALR 301. The Chief Justice, in that case, adopted as the test whether "on any reasonable view of the evidence that decision can be supported"; a party aggrieved can thus only succeed if a decision contrary to the view of the magistrate is "the only possible decision that the evidence on any reasonable view can support" (see at VLR p.41)
(1996) 40 NSWLR 639