Braund v Henning [1988] HCA 36 — BarristerAI

Braund v Henning

(1988) 62 ALJR 433; [1988] HCA 36

High Court of Australia1 July 1988

Ratio Decidendi

Where the circumstances of a collision are clearly established by findings of primary fact which the trial judge was entitled to make, the High Court may itself make the apportionment of contributory negligence rather than ordering a new trial or remitting the matter.

Quick Take

Appellate courts should not overturn trial judges' findings of fact where those findings depend on credibility assessments and are supported by evidence, even where the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion.

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Legal Areas

Contract LawProcedural Fairness

Linked Principles

Legal principles extracted from this case

01Where the circumstances of a collision are clearly established by findings of primary fact which the trial judge was entitled to make, the High Court may itself make the apportionment of contributory negligence rather than ordering a new trial or remitting the matter.
02
03
04

+7 more principles

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[1988] HCA 36

Reported(1988) 62 ALJR 433(1988) 79 ALR 417

CourtHCA

JurisdictionCommonwealth

Decision Date1 July 1988

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Reported citations

(1988) 62 ALJR 433 · (1988) 79 ALR 417

Subsequent Judicial Consideration5›

Cases that have considered Braund v Henning

Referred to (5)

Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 148 Stephens v TAC [2019] VSCA 234 Marsden v Ydalia Holdings (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 52 Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 138 Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 148Referred to

Stephens v TAC [2019] VSCA 234Referred to

Marsden v Ydalia Holdings (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 52Referred to

Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 138Referred to

Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7Referred to

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage.

Braund v Henning at [30]

The duty of a solicitor to advise a client of the risks of litigation extends to advising on the prospects of recovery of costs in the event of success, particularly where the opposing party may lack the means to satisfy a costs order

The duty of a solicitor to advise a client of the risks of litigation extends to advising on the prospects of recovery of costs in the event of success, particularly where the opposing party may lack the means to satisfy a costs order.

Braund v Henning at [37]