• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Hemmant's List Hemmant's List

0735053969
Menu
Menu
  • About
    • The story of Hemmant and Lord Atkin
    • How does the list work?
    • How does a barrister join the list?
    • The Clerk
    • Emerging Art Program
    • Equitable Briefing
    • Former List Members (Judicial Appointments)
  • Barristers
  • Mediators & Arbitrators
  • Mediation Centre
  • Areas of Practice
      • Administrative & Public Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Appellate
      • Civil Litigation
      • Commercial Law
      • Crime
      • Employment & Industrial Relations
      • Equity & Trusts
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Human rights law
      • Inquests & Inquiries
      • Intellectual property law
      • International law
      • Marine law
      • Medical Negligence
      • Native Title Law
      • Personal Injuries and Health Law
      • Property Law
      • Resources, Construction & Infrastructure Law
      • Taxation Law
  • NEWS

NEWS

Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28 – High Court revisits the function of appellate courts in a rehearing

September 17, 2019

The High Court of Australia has revisited the function of appellate courts conducting “rehearings” on questions of fact in Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28.  The trial judge had dismissed the Appellant’s claim for damages, and found that the Appellant and his Co-Appellant parents had committed fraud to obtain certain benefits arising from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The trial judge had found that the Appellant, rather than his father, was the driver of the vehicle in question.

The Queensland Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeals brought by the Appellants.  In doing so, though, the Court found that a number of the findings of the trial judge based on inferences drawn from primary facts were wrong.

The High Court noted that the Court of Appeal was bound to conduct a “real review” of the evidence and the trial judge’s reasons to determine whether there was an error of fact or law.  Appellate restraint in interfering with findings of fact affected by impressions of witnesses was required, including with respect to secondary facts based on a combination of such impressions and other inferences from primary facts.  Beyond that, an appellate court was in as good a position as the trial judge to draw inferences from undisputed facts or facts established by the findings of the trial judge.  Given the identification of relevant error by the Court of Appeal, it was bound to decide for itself which of the competing hypotheses was more probable.  It did not do so.

The High Court went on to conclude that the circumstantial evidence showed that the father in fact was the driver.  The Court concluded that it did not need to consider the other ground of appeal being whether the Court of Appeal had failed to give adequate reasons by not addressing a substantive argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants.

Judgment was given for the Appellant on his claim and the judgments for fraud were set aside.

Geoffrey Diehm QC, Jennifer Hewson, Richard Douglas QC and Brett Charrington of Hemmant’s List appeared for various parties in the appeal.

See judgment here: http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2019/HCA/28

Geoffrey Diehm KC

Geoffrey Diehm KC

Richard Douglas KC

Richard Douglas KC

Brett Charrington KC

Brett Charrington KC

Jennifer Hewson

Jennifer Hewson

Share
  • Linkedin
  • Facebook
  • Gmail

Contact the Clerk

Hemmant's List Centre Level 6 Santos Place 32 Turbot Street Brisbane QLD 4000
+61 7 3505 3969 admin@hemmantslist.com.au
Submit a Briefing Request   Online Briefing
LinkedIn

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

© 2025 Hemmant's List
  • Facility Bookings
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
ABN 87 612 554 551
Web Design by iCreate Advertising