Where competing expert evidence is involved and credit is not in issue, a trial judge who prefers one expert's evidence over another must explain the basis for that preference, particularly where the rejected evidence is essentially uncontradicted. A bare statement of preference is insufficient. Where the resolution of issues involves an intellectual exercise of evaluating technical evidence presented in written reports rather than credibility assessments, an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial judge and may determine the matter itself. A breach of an implied term of fitness for purpose (goods incapable of operating at specified conditions) does not necessarily establish causation for losses arising from failures at different operating conditions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.