2025/00251408
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 9/9/25 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 237.3 KB) |
| 22/10/25 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 299.9 KB) |
| 1/12/25 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 272.2 KB) |
| 11/12/25 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 239.6 KB) |
| 15/12/25 | Appellant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 138.8 KB) |
| 15/12/25 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 96.2 KB) |
NEGLIGENCE – on 22 May 2018, Mr Billy Zamagias (the Appellant) was injured when the vehicle he was driving came into collision with a vehicle being driven by Ms Antoinette Saltalamacchia (the Respondent) at a T-intersection where Access Road meets Hoxton Park Road, a main arterial road – the intersection was governed by a set of traffic signals – the Appellant sued the Respondent for damages arising out of the accident – the Respondent denied liability – the matter was originally heard by Ainslie-Wallace ADCJ in 2023, and in December 2023, her Honour gave judgment in favour of the Appellant – the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal who in 2024 subsequently ordered that the matter be remitted to the District Court for a retrial on the issue of liability only – the matter before Dicker SC DCJ (the primary judge) turned on who was responsible for the accident – the primary judge held that, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant had not established his account that he proceeded through a white “B” sign while the Respondent turned on a red arrow – the primary judge ordered judgment for the Respondent – whether the primary judge erred in taking into consideration, or gave undue weight to, the Appellant’s provision of a statement to the police six months following the subject accident – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Respondent commenced to turn with a green arrow, such finding was plainly unreasonable and unjust and contrary to compelling inferences – whether the primary judge erred in failing to refer to or to give sufficient weight and consideration of all the evidence – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the light phasing evidence showed the lights going ahead east would have likely been green and there was no evidence of pedestrians crossing Hoxton Park Road at the time – whether the primary judge ought properly to have found that the Respondent’s evidence could not be relied upon – whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Halwagy (the Respondent’s brother, who was a passenger at the time) was “looking ahead” and was unlikely to be confused about the change of lights, such finding was unjust and unreasonable and not consistent with compelling inferences – whether the primary judge erred in various findings of facts regarding the Respondent.
Last updated: