McEntee v SJ Berry

The case of McEntee v SJ Berry involved an appeal to an appellate court concerning findings of deceit made by a primary judge. The appellants challenged these findings, arguing that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the primary judge's findings of deceit were demonstrably wrong, notwithstanding the advantage the primary judge had as the trier of fact. This required the appellate court to consider the principles governing appeals against findings of fact, particularly when those findings are based on credibility assessments. The court also had to consider the standard of proof required in civil matters, as informed by the principles in *Briginshaw v Briginshaw*.

The appellate court rejected the appellants' challenge. It found that the primary judge's findings were clear, detailed, and compelling, and that no error had been demonstrated in his treatment of the evidence. The court affirmed that while appellate courts must give due allowance for the advantages of the trial judge, they are not precluded from overturning findings if the evidence demonstrates them to be "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling inferences." In this instance, the appellate court found no such compelling reasons to depart from the primary judge's conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed, with the appellate court affirming the primary judge's findings of deceit and the consequent liability of the appellants to the respondents.