Ravindran v Rasanayagam

On an application for permission to appeal against a fact-finding decision, permission should be refused where the proposed appeal has no realistic chance of success. A trial judge faced with conflicting and unreliable evidence may properly test the available documentary evidence against the inherent probabilities. A judgment may be open to criticism or contain some obscurity without being unsound, provided the judge understood the burden of proof and adopted a rational approach to the evidence. The legal burden remains on the party advancing the claim or counterclaim, although the evidential burden may shift on particular issues.

The applicant, the defendant at trial, sought permission to appeal and an extension of time from an order made by Master Bowman on 7 December 2000. The underlying action, heard by consent over four days, concerned whether the applicant and his sister had formed a partnership to acquire a newsagent’s business, and whether she had contributed £25,000. The Master found that a partnership existed, declared that the contribution had been made, dismissed the counterclaim and adjourned questions concerning accounts and management. The applicant challenged findings of fact, the treatment of bank-account evidence, alleged inconsistencies and the burden of proof. The central issue was whether an appeal had a realistic chance of success.

The Court of Appeal refused the applications for permission to appeal and for an extension of time.

1. The Master had faced an exceptionally difficult fact-finding task. There was acute conflict between the parties, little documentary evidence, no impartial oral evidence, and evidence given substantially through interpreters. A new trial was unlikely to provide a materially better prospect of discovering the truth.
2. The apparent inconsistency in the Master’s reasoning about the source and mixing of funds did not necessarily undermine his conclusion that the nine cheques totalling £25,000 had been agreed as the claimant’s contribution. The possible mingling of funds in an account held in her name was not inconsistent with that conclusion.
3. The Master had understood that the legal burden rested on the claimant in relation to her claim and on the applicant in relation to his counterclaim. In this type of case, however, the evidential burden could shift on crucial points, particularly where the applicant’s own evidence was unsatisfactory.
4. The Master was entitled to identify a pattern in the bank statements suggesting payments from the claimant to the applicant and to consider the absence of any satisfactory alternative explanation for the acquisition funding. The criticisms concerning the use of two cheques and the timing of cheque clearance did not materially undermine those findings.
5. Although the judgment was not beyond criticism, the Master had approached the evidence in the correct way by considering the available documents and the inherent probabilities. The proposed appeal therefore had no realistic chance of success. Applications refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for permission to appeal and for an extension of time refused.
2. Chancery Division: Master Bowman heard the action by consent, found that a partnership existed and that £25,000 had been contributed to it, dismissed the counterclaim, and adjourned the accounting and management issues.