Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd

In Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd, the respondent claimed damages for injuries sustained when his left hand was severed by a circular saw. He alleged that the appellant, who manufactured the saw, was liable either due to a defect in the saw or due to negligence on their part. The primary judge found both bases of liability were established and awarded damages. The appeal centred on whether the primary judge's reasons for the decision were adequate, particularly whether they sufficiently discussed inconsistencies in the evidence, the reliability and strengths of the evidence, and whether the evidence of one expert was to be preferred over the other.

The court examined whether the reasons provided by the primary judge were adequate and whether they properly addressed the key issues of the case. The appeal hinged on whether the reasons given were sufficient to ensure that the appeal court could understand and review the primary judge's decision. The court noted that the primary judge's reasons did not delve into the necessary details regarding the evidence and expert opinions, which was critical for a proper review.

The court found that the primary judge's reasons were inadequate as they failed to address critical aspects of the evidence and the expert opinions. The lack of discussion on the inconsistencies in the evidence, the reliability and strengths of the evidence, and the comparative merits of the expert opinions meant the reasons did not provide enough information to assess the primary judge’s decision. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a new trial on all issues other than quantum. The costs of the first trial were to abide the result of the new trial, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.