Plover v McIndoe [2000] VSC 475

All that was intended was that perverse findings might be set aside, i.e. findings for which there was no evidence or that no reasonable coroner could make. The scope of review is therefore the same as that with which, in Anderson v Blashki [1993] VicRp 60; [1993] 2 VR 89 at 92, Gobbo J contrasted it by reference to Young v Paddle Bros. Pty. Ltd. [1956] VicLawRp 6; [1956] VLR 38 at 41.

156. Hedigan J in Hallenstein was concerned with a finding under section 19(1)(e) and considered the law relating to causation, as being "applicable to the concept of contribution which, within the Act, is concerned with the causes of death and who contributed to it." After referring to Fitzgerald v Penn [1954] HCA 74; (1954) 91 CLR 268 and E & MH March v Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, His Honour said at 17:

(1978) 1 NSWLR 528

(1954) 91 CLR 268

(1991) 171 CLR 506