Young v Cesta-Incani

The appeal concerned the adequacy of the reasons provided by the primary judge in a District Court trial. The appellant, Mr. Young, had brought proceedings against the respondents, Cesta-Incani and others, and the dispute ultimately revolved around the judge's findings on liability.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had failed in their duty to rationally engage with the case presented by each party and, specifically, whether the judge had adequately explained why they preferred the evidence of one expert witness over another.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's reasons were insufficient. They held that a judge must provide reasons that demonstrate a rational engagement with the evidence and arguments put forward by both sides. Crucially, where expert evidence conflicts, a judge must explain the basis for preferring one expert's opinion over another's, rather than simply stating a preference. Because this duty was not adequately discharged, the Court allowed the appeal and the cross-appeal, setting aside the verdict on liability and remitting the matter for a new trial on liability and, if necessary, damages.