In a serious injury application under s 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, the trial judge must make express findings that each injury separately constitutes a 'serious injury' and must not aggregate impairments from different injuries. Where surveillance video evidence raises substantial questions about a plaintiff's credibility, the trial judge must address the apparent discrepancies between the video and the plaintiff's claimed disabilities, assess the plaintiff's explanations given in cross-examination, and explain why the plaintiff's credibility is accepted notwithstanding those discrepancies. However, an appellate court will not overturn a credibility finding based on surveillance video evidence where the trial judge had the advantage of observing the plaintiff's reactions to the video during cross-examination, unless the finding is glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 90 later cases that cite this judgment.
18 of the 90 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.