105 Third, as his Honour saw it, the contest ultimately resolved itself into a conflict in the evidence of Dr Vowels and Mr Joblin. The judge evidently preferred the evidence of Mr Joblin, who had been assessing people for over 35 years, to the evidence of Dr Vowels, who had been in practice for approximately the same period of time, and who had been in specialist neuropsychological practice for over 25 years. Moreover, what his Honour did was to prefer the evidence of Mr Joblin, who had not subjected the applicant to any testing on either of the occasions that he interviewed him, and whose second interview was conducted by video-link, to the evidence of Dr Vowels, whose extensive and focused testing had been conducted face to face. Further, his Honour preferred the evidence of Mr Joblin, which was history-based, supplemented by observation, to the evidence of Dr Vowels, whose opinion was only in part history-based and which was substantially dependent upon test results. Further again, the judge preferred the evidence of Mr Joblin, although his Honour misunderstood, as it appears to us, the 'slowness' to which Dr Vowels referred. As we have earlier pointed out, her reference to slowness was with respect to the applicant's performance at testing. In the same connection, Dr Vowels had made it clear that the applicant presented with a confidence in his abilities to which the testing gave the lie. To say that the applicant presented well rather missed the point. We refer to the interchange between his Honour and Dr Vowels[19] above. Further, the judge preferred the evidence of Mr Joblin despite the fact that the witness's initial conclusion, expressed in his 2010 report, had quite quickly proved to be erroneous. Finally, the evidence of Mr Joblin referred to at [91] above was scarcely compatible with his characterisation of the applicant as a man of 'good intellect'.