Strinic v Singh

(2009) 74 NSWLR 419; [2009] NSWCA 15

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Assessment of credit
4. › Credit finding based on wrong factual findings or judge's own medical knowledge
5. › Whether credit finding protected where based on matters not in evidence
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Trial judge's obligation to base findings on evidence
4. › Use of judge's own specialist knowledge in court of general jurisdiction
5. › Whether denial of procedural fairness
1. Judges and Courts
2. › Judicial obligation to make findings of fact on proved evidence
3. › Distinction between courts of general jurisdiction and specialist tribunals
4. › Judge's familiarity with medical terminology from experience
5. › Whether judge entitled to rely on own medical knowledge
1. Appeal
2. › Civil appeal
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Credibility of witnesses
5. › Whether adverse credit finding vitiated by reliance on matters not in evidence
6. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A

Quick Take

A trial judge in a court of general jurisdiction who makes findings of fact based on personal medical knowledge, rather than the evidence, commits an error of law and denies procedural fairness, even where the judge has extensive experience in personal injury litigation. Credit findings based on such personal knowledge are not protected by the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness. However, a judge may advise the parties of a particular understanding of medical evidence and, if all parties agree, may act on that understanding without breach of procedural fairness.