Where a trial judge expressly eschews reliance on the impression created by witnesses and bases factual findings on an assessment of reliability rather than credibility, an appellate court is able to reconsider those factual findings. However, the appellate court may still reach the same conclusion on the evidence. In medical negligence cases, where lay evidence of a patient's condition is contradicted by multiple treating practitioners, the constancy of the lay witness's description across a period when medical evidence shows change may itself undermine the reliability of that description. On causation, where the factual hypothesis required to establish causation has not been made out, the court may decline to address causation rather than engage in an artificial exercise.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.