A trial judge who fails to resolve a conflict in medical evidence on a critical issue of causation, and simply states a conclusion without explaining why one body of expert opinion is preferred over another, commits an appealable error giving rise to a miscarriage of justice. The case illustrates the application of the duty to give adequate reasons in the context of conflicting orthopaedic evidence about the long-term effects of meniscal surgery on degenerative knee change.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.