In serious injury applications under s 93(4)(d) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic), where the applicant's credibility is centrally in issue and challenged by video surveillance evidence and other cogent material, a trial judge's reasons must do more than express a general belief that the applicant was doing their best to tell the truth. The reasons must analyse the competing evidence, address the specific matters raised in the attack on credibility, and explain why the attack was rejected. The mere recitation of evidence followed by conclusory findings is inadequate. Where assumptions underlying an expert opinion are themselves dependent on contested credibility findings, the judge must evaluate those credibility issues before relying on the expert opinion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.