Tudor v Laniyan

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s firm resolution of conflicting factual evidence merely because criticisms of the reasoning may be arguable. The assessment of which account is reliable, including findings of credibility, is primarily for the trial judge who heard the witnesses. A challenge to a finding of fact requires substantial justification, and a challenge to a finding of credibility is more difficult still. Where the trial judge has evaluated the competing evidence and preferred one account on a rational basis, the Court of Appeal will not reopen that assessment.

Mr Laniyan applied to challenge injunctions made by His Honour Judge Ryland in the Willesden County Court on 19 September 2001. The injunctions restrained violence or molestation and prevented him from visiting two homes used by Ms Tudor.

The orders arose from an altercation during or after contact between Mr Laniyan and the parties’ three-year-old daughter at a McDonald’s restaurant in Kilburn. The county court heard conflicting evidence from the parties and other witnesses, including Ms Tudor’s adult daughter. Judge Ryland preferred Ms Tudor’s account and rejected the evidence relied upon by Mr Laniyan. The central issue was whether that factual and credibility assessment justified appellate intervention.

1. Application dismissed. There was nothing warranting permission to appeal from the orders made by Judge Ryland.
2. The county court hearing was a trial of fact. Its resolution depended upon deciding which competing account of the events was more reliable. Judge Ryland had heard the witnesses, considered the differences between Ms Tudor’s evidence and that of her daughter, and nevertheless found that those differences did not undermine their basic credibility.
3. The judge was particularly impressed by the evidence of Ms Tudor’s daughter and firmly preferred the evidence presented by Ms Tudor. He was entitled, in the exercise of his discretion, to make the injunctions on the factual findings reached.
4. The Court of Appeal could not properly question that fact-finding function. A judicial finding of fact is extremely difficult to challenge on appeal, and a finding of credibility is more difficult still. Mr Laniyan’s criticisms, even if some had arguable validity, did not begin to justify appellate intervention.
5. The application was therefore dismissed, with the provisional rejection of permission accepted by Mr Laniyan.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mr Laniyan’s application challenging the injunctions made by the Willesden County Court on 19 September 2001 was dismissed.