On appeal from a serious injury application under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, the correctness standard of review applies, following Connelly and Perumal. A finding that a plaintiff is not a credible witness (as distinct from not reliable) will be treated as a finding of intentional deception, notwithstanding a caveat that the judge did not need to make such a finding. Where a plaintiff has extensively disclosed employment information to medical practitioners (including those examining on behalf of the defendant), a finding of intentional concealment based on omissions in an affidavit is glaringly improbable. A supplementary affidavit correcting omissions in an earlier affidavit cannot, without more, be characterised as a 'construct'. Where credit is impeached in cross-examination, ss 39(a) and 108(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 permit re-examination on that issue without leave.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.