A trial judge's credibility findings based on demeanour will not be disturbed on appeal unless contrary to incontrovertible facts, compelling inferences, or glaringly improbable, even where the appellate court considers the reasons for rejecting a witness were sparingly expressed. Where competing expert reports are tendered without oral evidence, the trial judge must analyse the competing opinions and explain why one is preferred, but briefly stated reasons may suffice if they convey the essential basis for the preference. An expert who speculates about why a party's evidence might be mistaken, or who bases opinions entirely on one party's version without acknowledging the alternative, may properly be found to have 'entered the arena' as an advocate.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.