Sophie Rebecca Perhar v Louise Freestone & Ors
[2024] EWHC 945 (Ch)
911 SBD Ltd v Bury Van Hire Ltd & Anor
23 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 96 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued to get back money paid for a car they never received. The judge believed the seller's story more than the buyer's, and an appeals court agreed. The appeals court said the first judge was fair, and didn't make any major mistakes. So, the buyer lost the appeal.
Key Facts
- •911 SBD Ltd (Claimant/Appellant) appealed the dismissal of its claim against Bury Van Hire Ltd (First Defendant/First Respondent) and Marcus Walker (Second Defendant/Second Respondent).
- •The claim involved two £25,000 payments made by 911 to BVH as a deposit for a Ferrari, which was never delivered.
- •BVH argued the deposit was for a lease agreement between Walker and its sister company, Bury Vehicle Leasing Ltd (BVL).
- •The trial judge preferred the evidence of BVH's witnesses over that of 911's director, Mr. Bose.
- •The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings of fact and the adequacy of the reasons given.
Legal Principles
Challenges to findings of fact require a high threshold; the appellate court must find the trial judge was plainly wrong.
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ 191; Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Clin [2021] EWCA Civ 136; Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464; Weymont v Place [2015] EWCA Civ 289; Hewes v West Hertfordshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2020] EWCA 1523; T (A Child) [2002] EWCA Civ 1736
Trial judges are not required to address every point or piece of evidence, but must identify and explain the critical issues and their resolution.
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605; T (A Child) [2002] EWCA Civ 1736
The trial judge's assessment of witness credibility is given significant weight on appeal.
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings were not rationally unsupportable and that the reasons given were adequate. The judge's assessment of witness credibility, particularly his finding that Mr. Bose was an unimpressive witness, was crucial to the decision. The Court found no identifiable flaw in the trial judge's treatment of the evidence.