Sandhu v Chauhan & Ors

In civil proceedings, the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities. The seriousness or inherent improbability of an allegation does not create a heightened standard. It affects the assessment of probability and the strength of evidence required to establish the facts. On appeal, a court should not retry findings based on witness credibility unless strong grounds justify intervention. Where the trial judge has correctly directed himself and carefully evaluated conflicting evidence, an appellate court should respect those findings.

The respondents claimed that the appellant had promised to repay the money they provided for the purchase of a mini-supermarket if they were unable to run it. A county court judge found that the oral agreement existed and awarded the respondents damages, dismissing most of the appellant’s counterclaim.

Permission to appeal was limited to whether the judge had applied the correct standard of proof to an agreement said to be unusual, one-sided and inherently implausible. The central issue was whether the evidence justified the finding of an enforceable oral agreement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge had correctly directed himself that the applicable standard of proof was the balance of probabilities. The reference to that standard was sufficient.
2. The seriousness or improbability of an allegation does not justify adopting a different or heightened standard of proof. As explained in Re H [1996] AC 563, inherent probability or improbability is a matter to be weighed when deciding whether the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger the evidence required, but the standard remains the balance of probabilities.
3. The evidence had been examined in detail. Two first-instance judges had independently preferred Mrs Chauhan’s evidence over that of the Sandhus. The Court of Appeal was not in a position to reassess witness credibility and would not order a retrial without very strong grounds.
4. Although the alleged bargain appeared unusual and one-sided, the surrounding circumstances provided a rational basis for the finding. The Chauhans had no experience of running a shop, lived and worked in Gravesend, and had relied on an arrangement which gave them a fallback if the business failed. The documents and the rejection of the Sandhus’ evidence supported the finding.
5. There had been no miscarriage of justice warranting a retrial nearly twelve years after the proceedings began. The appeal was dismissed with costs and any stay was lifted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed with costs. The court upheld the county court’s finding that the oral agreement had been proved on the balance of probabilities.
• Central London County Court: judgment for the Chauhans for £32,000 damages plus interest; most of the counterclaim dismissed.