Clifford v Grimley & Anor

A trial judge deciding disputed facts must explain the reasons for the conclusion reached. The extent of the duty depends on the subject matter. A judgment need not address every item of evidence or be lengthy, provided it sufficiently explains why the losing party failed. Appellate intervention is not justified merely because the reasoning could have been more detailed, where the findings remain adequately supported by the judgment read as a whole.

The claimant appealed from a judgment of the Middlesbrough County Court dated 3 August 2000. The defendants, neighbouring leasehold owners, had been found to have acquired title to disputed garden land by adverse possession. The claimant accepted their possession had exceeded 12 years but contended that it was permissive under an alleged oral licence or rent arrangement.

The appeal was limited to whether a new trial was required. The claimant argued that the trial judge had failed to evaluate material evidence and had given inadequate reasons, relying on Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge had found, on the evidence of the witnesses whom he heard, that the defendants occupied the disputed land without permission and had thereby acquired possessory title.
2. The duty to give reasons requires a judgment to explain sufficiently why the parties have won or lost. Its extent depends on the subject matter. A judge is not required to refer expressly to every aspect of the oral evidence, but the reasoning must not be so brief or perfunctory that the judgment is unfit for its purpose. This approach was applied from Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377.
3. Although the judgment did not analyse every conflict in the evidence, it made clear that the judge accepted the first defendant’s evidence on the central issue and preferred it to the claimant’s hearsay evidence. Read as a whole, the judgment sufficiently explained the decision.
4. The Court of Appeal should not order a rehearing merely because a trial judgment could have contained a fuller analysis. The findings were not so undermined by the brevity of the reasoning as to justify appellate interference.

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Judge agreed. The appeal was dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Middlesbrough County Court dismissed.
• Middlesbrough County Court: Judgment dated 3 August 2000 in favour of the defendants on adverse possession.