A trial judge's reliance on an erroneous transcript that misstates a party's evidence on a central issue constitutes a material error warranting a new trial, particularly where the error is repeated throughout the judgment and attributed an inconsistent version of events to the party. The case of a self-represented litigant should be read fairly, and frequent references to a concept (here, 'the lip' and 'the trip zone') may accommodate an allegation even if not precisely articulated. The 'particular risk' for the purposes of s 102 of the Road Management Act 2004 (Vic) requires an evaluative judgment that depends on factual findings about the state of the road and the cause of the harm.
The full text is available to signed-in members.