Where a footballer leaps for a mark within the field of play, is not pushed, and lands on the boundary fence, this is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support an inference on the balance of probabilities that the boundary line was marked too close to the fence, notwithstanding direct evidence from the line-marker that the line was marked at a greater distance. An appellate court conducting a rehearing may draw its own inferences from the evidence even where the trial judge's methodology was flawed, provided the court respects findings as to witness credibility.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.