Home | © 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

Evidence, specialist tribunal

StateCover Mutual Ltd v Smith [2012] NSWCA 27.

Macfarlan JA

28. The second respondent did not contend that the present was a case where the common experience of the decision maker was sufficient to support the finding (see Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 50 ALJR 720 at 724 - 725) or that the Commission, as a specialist tribunal, was entitled to, and did here, use knowledge acquired as a specialised tribunal to make the finding (see generally ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 55; 60 NSWLR 18 at [216] - [234] and Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; 85 ALJR 694 at [44] - [47]). Nor did the second respondent submit that the lay evidence of Mr Smith was, alone, capable of supporting the finding.

Previous page: Evidence, similar facts     Next page: Evidence suggesting a consciousness of guilt

© 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample