Strinic v Singh

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Mr Strinic, and the respondent, Mr Singh, heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The core of the disagreement revolved around the trial judge's findings of fact and assessment of witness credit, which the appellant argued were vitiated by errors of law.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had breached their judicial obligation to make findings of fact based solely on the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the judge had improperly relied on their own personal knowledge, including medical knowledge, in assessing the evidence and the credit of witnesses, rather than confining themselves to the proved facts. The central legal issue was whether such reliance constituted a denial of procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred by making findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence and by relying on personal knowledge, including medical knowledge, in assessing the credibility of witnesses. This approach was held to be contrary to the fundamental principles of procedural fairness, which require judicial decision-making to be based on the evidence presented by the parties. The court concluded that the judge's assessment of credit was therefore flawed.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The judgment and orders of the Court below were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a rehearing. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with a certificate granted under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951. The costs of the first trial were to abide the outcome of the rehearing.