Fuller v Barker

A trial judgment on the merits must give adequate reasons explaining the outcome. The reasons need not answer every argument in detail, but the losing party must be able to understand why the claim or defence succeeded or failed and to exercise any right of appeal effectively. Where the reasons are incomplete, an appellate court may infer unstated reasons only where the inference is necessary, rather than speculative. The duty is proportionate to the nature and scale of the case. If the absence of adequate reasons prevents a fair appellate review, and the appellate court lacks the transcript or the trial judge’s evidential advantages, the proper course may be to set aside the judgment and order a new trial.

The claimant obtained judgment in the Medway County Court for approximately £56,000 damages for conversion of six motor cars. The defendant appealed, arguing principally that the trial judge had failed to give adequate reasons for findings concerning payment for one car, the claimant’s ownership of two cars, and the alleged sources from which the defendant acquired the remaining vehicles.

The trial judge’s judgment contained limited reasoning. Permission to appeal was granted after the judge had retired, so no clarification of his reasons was available. The central issue was whether the reasons were sufficient to permit a fair and effective appellate review.

1. Appeal allowed. The judgment was set aside and a new trial was ordered. The court made the agreed consequential orders, including no additional interest and no order as to costs.
2. A court has a general duty to give reasons for its decision. On a decision on the merits, the reasons must adequately explain the outcome, although they need not provide a detailed answer to every argument. The extent of the duty is proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the case. The principle was supported by Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377 and Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1993) 16 EHRR 219.
3. Unstated reasons may be inferred from the parties’ arguments and documentary material only where the inference is necessary. Otherwise the appellate court would be guessing at the trial judge’s reasoning.
4. The trial judge gave no intelligible reasoning on whether the Mercedes had been paid for, or on whether the claimant owned the two Ford Sierra vehicles. The reasoning concerning the other three vehicles relied heavily on an ambiguous reference to eleven cars in a police statement, and did not explain why relevant evidence was rejected. It was not legitimate to reconstruct an adequate decision by combing through a deficient judgment for possible missing reasoning, as explained in Anya v University of Oxford [2001] EWCA Civ 405; [2001] 1 RLR 377.
5. Because there was no transcript and the appellate court had not seen or heard the witnesses, it could not fairly substitute its own reasons or determine the disputed credibility issues. A retrial was therefore required.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Medway County Court allowed. The county court judgment was set aside and the matter was ordered to proceed to a new trial.