APPEALS — Local Court — where dispute concerned characterisation of a cash payment — where defendant below was self-represented — whether the judge erred in application of the rule in Browne v Dunn — whether the judge erred in providing inadequate reasons
Quick Take
1There is no rule of law that requires a court to accept unchallenged evidence; a failure to cross-examine may be taken into account as part of a balancing exercise in assessing credibility, but it does not compel acceptance of the unchallenged version.
2Where a trial judge prefers one party's account over another on a critical factual dispute, the reasons must expose why that preference was formed and must engage with the rejected account; a judgment that does not do so is inadequate in law.
3The question whether a self-represented litigant's failure to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn required judicial intervention to afford procedural fairness was raised but not decided, the appeal having succeeded on other grounds.
