Chakravarti v Rapat Freight Ltd

An appellate court should respect the trial judge’s advantage in hearing and seeing witnesses. It should not interfere with a finding of fact supported by oral evidence merely because documentary evidence points in another direction, where the judge was entitled to prefer the oral evidence. A challenge that requires the appellate court to reweigh witness credibility will generally have no real prospect of success. The same restraint applies to findings about the evidential basis of admitted payments.

Chakravarti v Rapat Freight Ltd concerned a claim for £27,500 said to be arrears of salary for work as the defendant company’s managing director or chief executive. The claimant relied on a letter offering employment. The defendant contended that the letter related to proposed employment by a joint venture and had been prepared for a collateral personal purpose. It counterclaimed for repayment of £6,500 said to have been advanced as a loan.

His Honour Judge Knight QC preferred the oral evidence of the defendant’s witnesses, dismissed the salary claim and gave judgment on the counterclaim. He later declined to make an instalment payments order. The claimant renewed his application for permission to appeal, challenging the factual findings and the treatment of the documentary evidence. The central issue was whether there was any real prospect that the Court of Appeal would interfere with those findings.

The renewed application for permission to appeal against both orders was refused.

1. The trial judge had to determine whether the letter dated 28 April 1996 recorded a contract of employment with the defendant or the proposed terms of employment by a joint venture. Having heard the claimant, Mr Patel and Miss Kotecha, he was entitled to prefer the latter witnesses’ oral evidence. His conclusion that the letter had been prepared for a collateral personal purpose was supported by evidence and was a finding of fact.
2. An appellate court must respect the trial judge’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses. It should not interfere with a finding supported by oral evidence merely because written documents could support a different conclusion. The claimant’s complaint that the judge should have believed him rather than Mr Patel was therefore not a proper basis for appellate intervention.
3. The finding that the admitted payments of £6,500 were repayable loans was also a finding of fact based on the evidence. The Court of Appeal had no basis to interfere with it.
4. Although the Court had only an unapproved note of the trial judge’s reasons and no note of the reasons for refusing instalments, the material indicated that the relevant evidence and documentary inconsistencies had been considered. There was no real prospect that an appeal would produce a different conclusion. The application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal refused in [2001] EWCA Civ 394.
• County Court: His Honour Judge Knight QC dismissed the salary claim, gave judgment on the counterclaim for repayment of £6,500, and later declined to make an instalment payments order.