Where there are competing versions of the formation, parties to, and terms of a contract, supported by both oral and documentary evidence, a trial judge must engage with the competing evidence and explain why one version is preferred — a bald statement of satisfaction on the balance of probabilities is insufficient. A trial judge who disposes of the identity of contracting parties by attributing a subjective state of mind to one party (e.g., that an astute businessman would not have contracted with a trust) rather than undertaking an objective determination commits error. Where documentary evidence arguably supports a party's case, it must be considered in the judge's reasons in a satisfactory way.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 478 later cases that cite this judgment.
37 of the 478 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.