Where expert reports are relied upon by both parties in District Court personal injury proceedings without cross-examination, an appellant who complains of the trial judge's preference for one body of expert opinion over another in a careful and detailed judgment faces a difficult task on appeal. The failure to cross-examine opposing experts or object to their reports at trial weakens the appellant's position on appeal. A trial judge's resolution of conflicting expert evidence on psychiatric causation will not be disturbed where the judgment does not exhibit significant error of primary fact or law and analyses all relevant evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.