Delta Corporation Ltd v Davies

[2002] WASCA 125

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Employer and employee
3. › Duty of care
4. › Breach of duty
5. › Unsafe system of work
6. › Employee injured by wire bristles from brush
7. › Whether bristles entered body on nominated day as alleged
8. › Factual causation
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact based on credibility
4. › Whether appellate court may disturb trial judge's findings
5. › Distinction between specific findings of fact and inferences from facts
6. › Whether trial judge failed to use or palpably misused advantage
1. Evidence
2. › Burden of proof
3. › Civil standard
4. › Balance of probabilities
5. › Circumstantial evidence
6. › Whether plaintiff obliged to negate all alternative hypotheses
7. › Evaluation of competing inferences
8. › Allegation of fraud in civil proceedings
9. › Briginshaw standard
1. Damages
2. › Aggravated damages
3. › Whether available in negligence
4. › Whether plea of self-mutilation lacking bona fides
5. › Requirement of contumelious conduct

Quick Take

A plaintiff in a personal injuries action relying on circumstantial evidence is not obliged to negate all alternative hypotheses; the trial judge may make an inferential finding on the totality of the evidence. Equivocal answers under cross-examination do not necessarily constitute conclusive admissions and their weight depends on the trial judge's assessment of demeanour. An award of aggravated damages in negligence (if available at all) requires a finding that the defendant's conduct lacked bona fides or was contumelious; a plea of self-mutilation supported by expert evidence, even if ultimately rejected, does not necessarily lack bona fides. The question whether aggravated damages are available in negligence at all remains open in Western Australia.