Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield; Civeo Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield

[2025] QCA 161

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Civil proceedings
4. › Trial judge making factual findings inconsistent with plaintiff's specific evidence
5. › Whether findings went beyond issues joined between parties
6. › Whether trial judge created entirely new case
7. › Whether findings within ambit of material fact in issue at trial
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with judge's findings of fact
4. › Findings based on inferences from photographic evidence
5. › Whether inferences were open on the evidence
6. › Whether inferences contrary to direct evidence
7. › Functions of appellate court
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with judge's findings of fact
4. › Findings based on credibility and reliability of witnesses
5. › Distinction between credibility-based findings and inference-based findings
6. › Functions of appellate court
1. Damages
2. › Assessment of damages
3. › Future loss of earning capacity
4. › Discretionary assessment
5. › Standard of appellate review
6. › Whether award excessive
7. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

A trial judge does not deny procedural fairness by accepting a plaintiff's evidence as to the mechanism of injury 'in a general sense' while making more detailed factual findings based on inferences from objective evidence (such as photographs) that differ from the plaintiff's specific account, provided the findings remain within the ambit of the material fact in issue at trial. The distinction between the 'material fact' and 'particulars' of that fact is critical: inconsistencies in particulars (such as which specific bag was tripped on, or how many bins were emptied) do not constitute a new case requiring notice to the opposing party, so long as the essential mechanism of injury remains the same. Suvaal v Cessnock City Council is confined to cases where the trial judge creates an entirely new case as to the operative cause of the accident.