Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga

The case of *Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga* concerned an appeal to an appellate court regarding a finding of negligence made by a trial judge. The appellant, Davis, challenged the trial judge's assessment of credibility and whether that assessment was properly open on the facts presented.

The primary legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge was bound by their assessment of the plaintiff's credibility, whether the adverse credibility assessment was factually supported, and whether the plaintiff's prior medical histories were demonstrably inconsistent with their evidence at trial. Crucially, the court also considered whether the principle established in *Brown v Dunn* had been breached, specifically concerning the failure to confront the plaintiff with alleged inconsistencies in their evidence.

The appellate court reasoned that an appellate court is not bound by a trial judge's assessment of credibility where that assessment is not open on the facts. It found that the trial judge's adverse assessment of the plaintiff's credibility was not adequately supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the plaintiff not being confronted with the alleged inconsistencies between their trial evidence and prior medical histories. The court applied the principle in *Brown v Dunn*, which requires a party to put their case to an opponent in cross-examination, including any allegations of dishonesty or inconsistency, to allow the opponent an opportunity to respond.

The appeal was upheld.