Gunn & Anor v AMF Aviation Enterprises Ltd & Anor

A trial judge must engage with the principal issues in dispute and explain why one case is preferred over another, particularly where expert evidence is contested. The duty to give reasons does not require a response to every submission or evidential point. The question is whether the reasons, read overall, adequately explain the decision. A failure to address particular points expressly will not justify appellate intervention where the judge’s essential findings and evidential preferences are clear and there is no real prospect that an appeal would succeed.

The claimants purchased a microlight aircraft from the first defendant company. After the aircraft’s permit to fly was withdrawn because it exceeded the permitted weight, they alleged that it had been constructed and sold overweight and that the second defendant had fraudulently misrepresented its weight.

The deputy judge rejected the claim. He accepted that moisture absorption could account for the increase in weight and accepted evidence that the aircraft had not been constructed overweight. The claimants sought permission to appeal, arguing that the judge failed to give adequate reasons and failed to address important aspects of their case.

The central issue was whether the judge’s reasons were legally adequate in the light of disputed expert and factual evidence.

1. Application refused. The claimants had not shown a real prospect of succeeding on an appeal based on inadequate reasoning. The order included detailed assessment of the claimants’ costs.
2. The court considered the principle stated in Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377. Where a dispute involves competing analysis and reasons, the judge must engage with the issues and explain why one case is preferred. The principle is especially relevant to disputed expert evidence, but it does not require a judge to address every submission individually.
3. The deputy judge had not dealt specifically with two matters concerning the effect of drying the aircraft and the weight of its wings. That omission was a legitimate criticism. His treatment of another submission was also limited.
4. Those defects did not make the reasons inadequate overall. The judge had accepted the credibility of the second defendant and, most importantly, the evidence of the production manager that the aircraft was not constructed overweight. He had also accepted expert evidence that moisture absorption could explain the weight gain. These findings sufficiently explained the conclusion, notwithstanding that some points would preferably have been addressed expressly.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the decision of Mr N. Wilkinson QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division, was refused.