Afoa v McBride

The appeal concerned a claim for personal injury brought by the appellant, a child, against the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent was responsible for the presence of a corrosive substance in a glass, which the appellant subsequently ingested, causing injury. The primary judge had rejected the appellant's case based on findings of fact relating to the credibility of witnesses.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge's findings of fact were "glaringly improbable" or "inconsistent with the evidence" to the extent that they should be overturned, and whether the primary judge had erred in assessing the reliability of hospital and other medical records in determining the case. The Court was required to consider the principles established in *Fox v Percy* regarding the appellate review of findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The primary judge's findings were not considered to be glaringly improbable or inconsistent with the evidence. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the primary judge had correctly applied the principles for assessing the reliability of medical records, as discussed in cases such as *Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin*. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.