Barker v Fuller

A trial judge must give sufficient reasons to explain findings on material disputed evidence. Where a judgment is so brief that it does not explain the rejection of significant evidence, documents or credibility-based arguments, that may provide an arguable ground of appeal and a real prospect of success. The Court of Appeal may grant permission to appeal where the alleged failure to give reasons is sufficiently serious in the context of the issues decided.

The defendant renewed an application for permission to appeal from an order of Medway County Court awarding the claimant approximately £56,000, including interest, for conversion of six motor cars. The trial had lasted four days. The defendant argued that the judge had failed adequately to address evidence concerning one Mercedes transaction, purchases from other traders, and a contemporaneous stock record. The defendant also argued that the judgment did not explain why evidence and documents supporting those matters were rejected. The central issue was whether the trial judge’s reasoning was sufficiently explained to permit proper appellate review.

1. Permission granted. Ward LJ held that the renewed application disclosed an arguable complaint with a real prospect of success. The trial judge’s reasoning was unusually brief in the context of the issues requiring determination.
2. The alleged deficiencies were material. The judgment appeared not to deal adequately with the Mercedes transaction, which could have undermined the finding that the relevant transactions were mirror images of earlier transactions.
3. The judge also rejected evidence from two traders and documents said to support purchases from third parties, apparently preferring the claimant’s recollection that eleven cars had been traded. Even if that conclusion was open to the judge, the defendant argued that the judgment should explain why the witnesses were rejected and why the supporting documents were treated as fabricated.
4. The complaint was strengthened by the judge’s general finding that the defendant was an honest trader. The judgment arguably failed to explain why that trader’s alleged contemporaneous stock record was rejected.
5. Mance LJ agreed that the reasoning may have been far too short in the context of the issues to be decided and that there was a real prospect of success.

The Court granted permission to appeal, extended time, and ordered costs in the appeal. The merits of the proposed appeal were not determined.

• Medway County Court: His Honour Judge Russell-Vick QC awarded the claimant approximately £56,000, including interest, for conversion of six motor cars.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The defendant’s renewed application for permission to appeal was granted, with an extension of time and costs in the appeal.