Amir Khodaparast v Peter Mark Arnstein
[2023] EWHC 1782 (KB)
Julie Amanda Mate v Shirley Clare Mate & Ors
17 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 675 (Ch)
High Court
Two brothers tried to appeal a court decision about money and a legal document. The judge said they didn't show any mistakes were made, so the appeal was rejected. They can try again with a higher court, though.
Key Facts
- •The second and third defendants (Robert and Andrew Mate) sought permission to appeal a High Court decision.
- •The appeal concerned two grounds: the valuation of the claimant's (Julie Mate's) services and findings of fact regarding Shirley Mate's understanding of a declaration of trust.
- •The High Court judge assessed Julie's services based on her role as a land promoter.
- •The defendants argued this was a wrong assessment of a mixed question of law and fact.
- •The defendants challenged findings of fact about Shirley Mate's state of mind when executing the declaration of trust.
- •The validity of the declaration of trust itself was not in dispute in these proceedings.
Legal Principles
Appeals are against orders, not reasoned judgments. Court of Appeal deals with the result, not findings or reasons in the judgment.
White Book, 52.0.6
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused on both grounds.
Defendants failed to identify any error of law or finding of fact not open to the judge. The judge considered the findings regarding Shirley Mate's state of mind were proper given the evidence, and their impact on subsequent litigation was not adequately demonstrated.