Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Limited

(2004) 60 NSWLR 127; [2004] NSWCA 174

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Expert evidence
5. › Dispute between experts
6. › Whether reasons adequate where expert evidence accepted solely on basis of witness being 'impressive' and 'eminent'
7. › Judicial obligation to give reasons when deciding between competing expert opinions
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Use of judge's personal knowledge
5. › Whether judge must disclose matters within personal knowledge before relying on them
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings based on expert evidence
4. › Whether appellate court may intervene where trial judge failed to follow precepts for resolving expert disputes
1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Psychological harm
4. › Whether finding that disc injuries not proved negated claim for depression where permanent pain and incapacity from back strain was found

Quick Take

Where a dispute between expert witnesses is capable of rational resolution by examination and analysis, and no adverse credibility findings have been made against any expert, a trial judge's decision based solely on the 'eminence' or 'impressive' demeanour of one expert will not constitute adequate reasons and may be set aside on appeal. A trial judge who intends to rely on personal knowledge of an expert's reputation must disclose this to the parties and give them an opportunity to deal with it. The Fox v Percy principle regarding the trial judge's advantage in assessing credibility does not preclude appellate intervention where the judge's reasons reveal a failure to follow the precepts for resolving expert disputes.