The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a judgment awarding damages for a respiratory injury allegedly caused by being sprayed with a fire extinguisher.
The appeal raised issues regarding the admission of participant expert evidence, the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for not considering defence expert evidence on causation, and the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons insufficient for failing to analyze the appellant's expert evidence on the diagnosis of Reactive Airways Disorder Syndrome (RADS) and for relying on an unqualified expert's incorrect summary of other specialists' views.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.
