The appellant challenged a judgment in an insurance benefits dispute concerning whether a proposed rehabilitation expenditure was a reasonable expense.
The court accepted that a significant-benefit threshold would be erroneous, but interpreted the trial reasons as finding only that the evidence showed no more than an insignificant benefit in the circumstances.
It held that the trial judge was entitled on the record to conclude the proposed expenditure was not a reasonable expense.
Leave to appeal costs was granted, and the trial costs order was varied so that there would be no order as to costs of the trial; the appeal was otherwise dismissed without costs.
