Page 150 - Magistrates Conference 2019

Above all the judge should bear steadily in mind that reasons are not intelligible if
they leave the reader to wonder which of a number of possible routes has been

taken to the conclusion expressed. Failure to expose the path of reasoning is an

error of law.” [emphasis added]

(84) Nettle J.A. went on to say at paragraph 28:

“[28]…The requirement to refer to the evidence upon which findings are based is a
requirement to analyse the evidence and to explain why some parts of it do and others

do not lead to the ultimate conclusion. And that analysis must be recorded in the
reasons. In general, and in this case in particular, the mere recitation of evidence

followed by a statement of findings, without any commentary as to why the evidence

is said to lead to the findings, is about as good as useless.” [emphasis added]

(85) The reasoning in Hunter v Transport Accident Commission and Avalanche44 was
applied in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Franklin v Ubaldi

Foods Pty Ltd45, where Ashley J.A., in considering whether the reasons of the judge were

adequate to disclose his path of reasoning, said at paragraph 38:

“[38] I hope that I do not underestimate the difficulty that confronts a County Court
judge who is faced with resolving applications such as this, one after the other, upon

inadequately exposed material. I accept that in such circumstances reasons for
decision may lack the precision which could be expected if the judge had the luxury –

some would say it is most often the necessity – of hearing witnesses viva voce, and

then having time for reflection; and yet that such reasons may be adjudged adequate.
But one thing is clear. Reasons must be such as reveal – although in a particular

case it may be by necessary inference - the path of reasoning which leads to the
ultimate conclusion. If reasons fail in that respect, they will not enable the losing

party to know why the case was lost, they will tend to frustrate a right of appeal, and

their inadequacy will in such circumstances constitute an error of law.” [emphasis
added]”

The Court of Appeal reiterated:

Page 19 of 26