Murray v Shillingsworth

The appeal in *Murray v Shillingsworth* concerned a dispute over a workers compensation claim. The appellant, Murray, sought to overturn a decision of the primary judge that had dismissed his claim for compensation. The respondent was Shillingsworth.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in law by preferring one expert witness's opinion over another, and what the proper approach was when faced with competing hypotheses regarding the cause of an injury. The Court also considered the capacity of a trial judge to draw inferences that might rely on intuition, and the adequacy of the primary judge's reasons. Furthermore, the Court examined the interplay between the requirement of a "contributing factor" under s 4(b)(ii) and a "substantial contributing factor" under s 9(A) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law in the primary judge's decision. It held that a trial judge is entitled to prefer one expert opinion over another, provided that preference is adequately reasoned. The Court affirmed that a judge may draw inferences that are not solely based on logical deduction but may also involve an element of intuition, provided these inferences are supported by the evidence. The Court concluded that the primary judge's reasons were adequate and that the finding that the employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury was open to the judge on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.