Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Electrade Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal by The Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd against Electrade Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned the adequacy of reasons provided by a trial judge and the extent to which an appellate court could infer or speculate on those reasons when they were not fully articulated.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether an appellate court is permitted to speculate on the reasons a trial judge might have had for their findings, particularly when those findings are based on credibility assessments, and whether a "bald finding on credit" constitutes adequate compliance with the duty to give reasons. The applicant argued that if a trial judge fails to provide sufficient reasons for their findings, an appellate court should not attribute reasons that the trial judge may not have actually held.

The applicant contended that the appeal division had erred by inferring reasons for the trial judge's decision, especially concerning the rejection of defence evidence. The applicant highlighted passages from the appeal division's judgment that described the trial judge's reasons as "expressed very economically indeed" and noted a "failure to explain the basis of rejection of defence evidence which appeared compelling." The applicant argued that this approach was inconsistent with previous Full Court decisions in Victoria and judgments from the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, which they submitted would not permit an appellate court to speculate on unstated reasons.