A District Court judge conducting an appeal by way of rehearing under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) is not necessarily shown to have failed to conduct a rehearing merely because the judge uses expressions such as 'it is open on the evidence', provided the reasons read as a whole demonstrate that the judge made an independent assessment. Where there are two concurrent findings of fact, an applicant for leave to appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 must demonstrate manifest error and substantial injustice. The dissent highlights the risk that framing grounds of appeal in terms of 'unreasonable verdict' language may mislead a District Court judge into applying the wrong standard of review.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.