Drew v Makita (Australia) P/L

[2009] QCA 66

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Right of appeal
4. › Error of law
5. › Failure to give adequate reasons for decision
6. › Whether reasons adequate where trial judge failed to discuss inconsistencies in evidence, reliability of witnesses, and preference between conflicting expert evidence
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Adequacy of reasons
5. › Expert evidence
6. › Conflicting expert opinions
7. › Whether trial judge must explain preference for one expert over another
1. Appeal
2. › New trial
3. › Remittal to trial court
4. › Whether new trial should be limited to liability only with quantum findings preserved

Quick Take

A trial judge who fails to discuss inconsistencies in the evidence, the reliability of witnesses, or why one expert's evidence is preferred over another commits an error of law warranting a new trial. Where conflicting expert evidence involves an intellectual exchange with reasons and analysis on either side, the judge must enter into the issues and explain the preference. The existence of a product defect does not alone establish liability; it must be shown the defect was operative at the time of the accident and caused the injury.