Where expert evidence is largely unchallenged and the only cross-examined expert's opinion is left undisturbed, a trial judge must analyse the expert evidence on the basis of its cogency and explain why one expert is accepted over another; bald conclusionary findings citing transcript passages and exhibits without explanation do not constitute adequate reasons. A trial judge who misinterprets key medical evidence by omitting important qualifications attached to an expert's opinion commits a reviewable error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 58 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 58 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.