Cyma Petroleum Ltd & Anor v Cas Business Services Ltd (t/a Westwood Service Station) & Ors

An appellate court should rarely interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of witness reliability and findings of fact based on hearing the evidence. Permission to appeal on factual grounds requires material capable of showing that intervention is justified, and the evidence must meet a demanding threshold. A criticism that the trial judge relied on an irrelevant inconsistency may be well founded, but it does not itself justify appellate intervention where the decision remains one of fact and impression. Evidence that could have supported a different conclusion is insufficient if the trial judge reached the contrary view after assessing the witnesses and found no adequate corroboration.

The Technology and Construction Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Thornton QC, dismissed Mrs Stephenson’s claims for assault and false imprisonment arising from an attempted eviction from a service station. The judge considered that her evidence required corroboration and found it insufficiently supported.

Mrs Stephenson sought renewal of permission to appeal on this aspect of the case. She argued that the trial judge had misunderstood her case, relied on an irrelevant inconsistency, and failed to give proper weight to evidence of aggressive behaviour and her psychiatric condition. The central issue was whether there was a real prospect of the Court of Appeal interfering with the trial judge’s factual conclusions.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The Court refused permission to appeal on the claims arising from the incident at the service station. Permission had already been granted on the major part of the dispute, but not on this factual ground.
2. The trial judge had been entitled to approach the evidence of the principal participants with care. He heard and saw Mrs Stephenson give evidence and concluded that he should look for corroboration, which he did not find sufficient.
3. The Court accepted one criticism of the reasoning. Mrs Stephenson’s unwillingness to leave the petrol station was irrelevant to whether she had been trapped behind the counter. That error did not transform the case into one warranting appellate intervention.
4. The evidence of Mr Hanchette’s aggressive manner, the atmosphere of the evening, and Mrs Stephenson’s psychiatric condition could have supported a finding in her favour. The issue nevertheless remained one of fact and impression for the trial judge. The material placed before the Court was not sufficiently strong to justify interference with his conclusion.
5. The formal order was that the application for renewal of permission to appeal was dismissed, with a public-funded costs assessment for Mrs Stephenson.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal concerning Mrs Stephenson’s assault and false-imprisonment claims.
• Technology and Construction Court: His Honour Judge Thornton QC dismissed those claims after finding Mrs Stephenson’s evidence insufficiently corroborated.