Mehmet v Macerio-Lindstrom

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no sensible prospect of success. An appellate court will rarely interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of oral credibility. It will not revisit factual findings or quantification merely because a party advances a different interpretation of the evidence or an expert report. An issue concerning tenants’ repairing obligations is immaterial to a claim for remuneration where the relevant questions are what services were provided, whether they were authorised, and the proper remuneration for them.

The claimant obtained judgment in the Mayor’s and City of London Court for remuneration for managing residential properties and for money allegedly expended on the defendant’s behalf. The judge awarded £41,704 plus interest and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.

The defendant, acting in person, applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. She challenged the trial judge’s credibility findings, the treatment of documentary evidence concerning tenants’ repairing obligations, and the judge’s understanding and use of a forensic accountant’s report. The central issue was whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable appeal with a realistic prospect of success.

Lord Justice Parker dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

1. Credibility findings. Assessment of the reliability of oral evidence was pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge. The judge had been entitled to prefer the claimant’s evidence wherever it conflicted with the defendant’s evidence. No basis had been shown for appellate interference with that assessment.
2. Tenants’ repairing obligations. Whether the tenants or a local authority were themselves obliged to repair the properties did not bear on the relevant issues. Those issues were what work the claimant performed or what services he provided for the defendant, and how he should be remunerated. The trial judge had found that the claimant did manage the properties and did so with the defendant’s authority. The repairing issue therefore did not affect his entitlement to recover the sums claimed.
3. Quantification and accounting evidence. The forensic accountant’s report had been before the trial judge and had been used, by agreement, to compute relevant figures from the records. The Court of Appeal found no basis for concluding that the judge had misunderstood the report or that his quantification was open to challenge on appeal.
4. The defendant’s remaining submissions disclosed no arguable ground. There was no sensible prospect of an appeal succeeding, and permission was accordingly refused. The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal and dismissed the application.
• Mayor’s and City of London Court: His Honour Judge Marr-Johnson entered judgment for the claimant in £41,704, awarded interest of £12,928, and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.