In particular, the Court held that it is only appropriate to overturn findings of fact where they are ‘ incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony’ or are ‘ glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling evidence’. The High Court unanimously held that the Court of Appeal should not have overturned the primary’s judge’s findings which lead them to a different conclusion. Therefore the Court held that Robinson was either liable in negligence or under the Trade Practices Act. In doing this, it reached a different conclusion to the primary judge as to the appearance of the Bolt at the time of the inspections.
#Findings of fact manual#
Rather the Court’s view was that the Manual did not provide adequate instructions. On appeal, the majority held inter alia that the judge had erred in finding that the Manual was sufficient. Thus the judge found in favour of Robinson.
The primary judge held that the Manual was sufficient to convey to a person carrying out an inspection the procedure for the detection of the defect. The question before the Court was whether the helicopter’s inspection Manual provided sufficient instructions to facilitate detection of the defect? Decision at first instance During a number of later routine inspections performed by pilots and engineers, the defect was not detected. That is, one of the bolts securing the flex plate had been incorrectly assembled which meant that the bolt was not tightened to the necessary degree (the defect). There was no contention between the parties that the cause of the crash was a failure of the helicopter’s forward flex plate. Mr McDermott, his wife and employer brought an action in negligence and under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) against Robinson. On, a Robinson R22 helicopter, manufactured by Robinson’s Helicopter Company (“the appellant”) crashed leaving the pilot dead and Mr McDermott (“first respondent”) with serious injuries.
#Findings of fact trial#
The case is a timely reminder that parties should think twice about seeking to appeal a trial judge’s findings of fact given how difficult it is to succeed.Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott is a recent decision of the High Court which considered an instance where an appellate court overturned a finding of fact by a primary judge regarding negligence. That is why an appeal against a trial judge’s findings of fact is such a high hurdle for an appellant to overcome.” If all the relevant evidence was considered by the judge then, even if the appellate court might have come to a different conclusion, an appeal against the trial judge’s findings of fact will fail. “ …an appellant has to show that there was no evidence to support the findings made, or there was a demonstrable misunderstanding of, or failure to consider, relevant evidence.
Having reviewed the authorities, Coulson LJ pointed out that for a successful appeal to be made against a trial judge’s finding of fact: Part of their case was that the judge’s findings on the factual evidence were unclear.Ĭoulson LJ dismissed the appeal and, in respect of the appellants’ complaints regarding the trial judge’s findings of fact, made it clear that any appellant faces an uphill struggle in appealing such findings. The appellants, a builder and his construction company, appealed against the trial judge’s findings that no profit share agreements existed in respect of two developments, namely Hazel Grove and The Barns. In Farrar v Rylatt EWCA Civ 1864 Coulson LJ provided a stark reminder of how difficult it is for a party to appeal a trial judge’s findings of fact.
0 kommentar(er)
