Pages 25 to 27 of the judgment contained summaries of all the experts' views. A page was then devoted to assertions made by the defendant's experts, but again no supporting evidence or argument was provided. The losing party complained that it was impossible to know why the judge agreed with the surveyor's experts, rather than the plaintiffs. Conclusions, but no reasons. There are no absolute rules about explaining judgments but it is right to say that the losing party must be able to understand why it lost, although it is only necessary to give detailed reasons when there has been something in the nature of an intellectual exchange, especially between experts.
Transparency is the watchword - transparency of the thought process.
If the scales of justice are tipped, say why. I mean being able to tell whether the deciding person had adequate reasons for the conclusion reached - invite that person to justify why they did not explain their judgment fully. Frequently this will save disgruntled parties seeking to take the case on to some higher tribunal, if only to find out what the hell caused the first tribunal to reach its findings. And, talking of hell, let's hope you get a decent adjudicator in the great hereafter. There are a few duff ones on earth.