Bhangu & Anor v Jagdev & Ors

A trial judge must give reasons sufficient to explain the decision, but is not required to address expressly every strand of evidence or submission. What is sufficient depends on the case.

On an appeal concerning credibility findings, the appellate court should recognise that it cannot assess oral evidence on paper. Brief reasons may suffice where the judge identifies the principal reasons for preferring one account, has considered the evidence as a whole, and the conclusion is supported by the material. Permission should be refused where the findings are not shown to be wrong.

The claimants agreed informally to take over a shoe shop from the first and second defendants. The proposed lease assignment did not proceed because the landlord’s consent was unavailable, and the agreement was unenforceable because it was not in writing.

The claimants succeeded in the Central London County Court against the first and second defendants and obtained judgment for £58,345.91. The remaining challenge concerned the trial judge’s findings about the sums paid in 1991. The first defendant sought permission to appeal, arguing that the judge had given insufficient reasons for preferring the claimants’ oral evidence. The central issue was whether the reasons were adequate and whether the factual findings had any realistic prospect of being overturned.

Lord Justice May delivered the judgment, with Sir Murray Stuart Smith agreeing. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Adequacy of reasons. A judgment must be sufficiently explained and reasoned. However, judges are not obliged to confront expressly every strand of evidence or submission. Decisions on credibility are not always capable of lengthy explanation, and what is sufficient varies from case to case. The principle discussed in Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [2001] WLR 277 did not require a longer judgment in the circumstances.
2. Appellate restraint. Where the issues turn principally on oral credibility, the Court of Appeal cannot assess the witnesses’ credibility on paper. It may examine the documentary and evidential basis for the findings, but should not infer that matters were ignored where the trial judge stated that all relevant points had been considered.
3. Application to the evidence. The trial judge gave reasons for preferring the claimants’ account. She found the first defendant’s evidence about the separate Coventry payment implausible and considered that the claimants’ account closely approximated the agreed price. The documents generally supported the claimants’ case. The first defendant’s account required the claimants to have paid substantially less than the agreed price, without any convincing historical complaint that money remained due.
4. The judge’s reasons were brief and could have included further detail, particularly about the source of the cash payment. Nevertheless, the findings were supported by the evidence and there was no basis for concluding that the judge had reached the wrong result. Permission to appeal was therefore refused with costs, subject to detailed assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On 28 January 2002, the application for permission to appeal was refused with costs. The decision is reported at [2002] EWCA Civ 115.
2. Central London County Court Her Honour Judge Bevington gave judgment on 30 November 2000, followed by consequential judgment on 23 January 2001. The claims against the first and second defendants succeeded, with judgment for £58,345.91.