Shillingsworth v Murray

Shillingsworth (the appellant) brought a claim against Murray (the respondent) under the *Workers' Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) concerning an injury sustained during employment. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the appellant's injury, particularly in light of a pre-existing congenital weakness. The matter was heard on appeal in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was an error of law in the process by which the trial judge preferred the evidence of one medical expert over another, and whether the absence of reasons for this preference constituted such an error. The court was required to determine if the trial judge's conclusion, that the employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury, was vitiated by a legal error in the assessment of expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for preferring one medical expert's opinion over the other. This lack of reasoning meant that the appellate court could not be satisfied that the trial judge had properly considered all the evidence and applied the correct legal principles, particularly concerning the requirement for employment to be a substantial contributing factor to the injury under section 9A of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1987*. The court held that a failure to articulate the basis for preferring one expert's evidence, especially when there was a conflict, amounted to an error of law.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed.