SHILLINGSWORTH v MURRAY [2004] NSWCA 465
The trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring Dr Matheson's expert opinion over Dr Kendall's, particularly given the core scientific proposition in dispute and the obligation to explain the preference in light of the medical literature. This lack of reasoning constituted an error of law warranting a new trial.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 April 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['substantial Contributing Factor' 'medical Evidence' 'causation' 'judicial Reasoning' 'conflict of Expert Evidence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury under s9A of the Workers' Compensation Act 1987" "Whether the trial judge erred in preferring one expert's evidence over another" "Whether the absence of reasons for preferring Dr Matheson's evidence constituted an error of law"]
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring Dr Matheson's expert opinion over Dr Kendall's, particularly given the core scientific proposition in dispute and the obligation to explain the preference in light of the medical literature. This lack of reasoning constituted an error of law warranting a new trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Set aside the award for the respondent' 'Remit the matter for re-hearing in the District Court' "Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal and to have, if qualified, a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment