Sant v Tsoutsas

The appeal in *Sant v Tsoutsas* concerned a dispute between the appellant and the respondent, heard before Beazley JA and Bell JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The core of the dispute revolved around the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for decision, particularly in relation to conflicting expert evidence and the failure to call certain experts.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had discharged their duty to give adequate reasons for the decision, especially when faced with conflicting expert opinions and the absence of expert witnesses at trial. This involved assessing whether the judge's findings on damages were sufficiently explained and justified in light of the evidence presented.

The Court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately discharge their duty to give reasons. This failure was particularly evident in the context of conflicting expert evidence, where the judge did not sufficiently explain the basis for preferring one expert's opinion over another, nor did the judge adequately address the implications of experts not being called to give evidence. The Court held that this lack of clear reasoning meant the decision on damages could not stand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the District Court orders were quashed, and a new trial was directed solely on the issue of damages. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the trial and the appeal, with a potential certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 for the appeal costs.