An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's preference for one version of events over another where the trial judge assessed the competing accounts by reference to contemporaneous records, objective facts and overall probabilities rather than demeanour, and the appellant's submissions amount to bare assertion that the appellant's evidence should have been preferred. The Fox v Percy 'glaringly improbable' standard was not met where the appellant's own case was glaringly improbable on the objective evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.