9 Ms Johnson accepted that Dr Mustac had laid out his report "in a very easily readable form which deals with specific matters in specific headings" and that he set out "his conclusions in a logical development of ideas". It was submitted, however, that the reasoning of Dr Mustac was faulty as it was based on his "personalised view" of the appellant's conduct and symptoms. The basic complaint in this regard was that Dr Mustac expressed subjective views on such matters as whether the appellant was malingering, whether she had a capacity to work, and other issues of direct relevance to the appellant's claim. In my view, however, these matters fell within Dr Mustac's expertise as a psychiatrist, and although his views were indeed subjective, that is to be expected - given the nature of the task he was required to undertake - and they must be taken to be based on his expert knowledge as a psychiatrist. Criticism directed at particular opinions expressed by Dr Mustac was merely repetitive of the argument rejected by the learned trial Judge, namely that the opinions of the appellant's medical practitioners should be preferred. In this regard it is to be observed that there is nothing in the testimony of Dr Mustac which establishes that the views expressed by him were wrong and should not have been accepted by the learned trial Judge. Ms Johnson submitted that many of the opinions expressed by Dr Mustac concerned the ultimate issues of fact to be determined by the trial Judge. I accept that this is indeed the case, but I do not think that the learned trial Judge blindly - as it were - accepted Dr Mustac's testimony without independently bringing her own mind to bear on the issues in question. Reading her Honour's reasons as a whole it seems to me that while she did rely on Dr Mustac's views, there were several other factors - including the demeanour, evidence and overall credibility of the appellant - which persuaded her to come to the conclusion that she did.