Where a trial judge prefers one party's evidence on several contested factual issues but accepts the opposing party's evidence on the critical issue without explanation, the reasons are inadequate. Gaps in evidence on a matter where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof cannot be treated as supporting the plaintiff's case. Where the critical factual dispute turns on credibility and the trial judge's reasons are inadequate, the appropriate remedy is a new trial rather than dismissal of the proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.