Hanfy v Assuity & Ors

Permission to appeal is refused where proposed grounds seek to re-argue factual findings made on preliminary issues and disclose no question of law. A party’s disagreement with findings about the existence or terms of an agreement, the accuracy of accounts, or the allocation of expenditure does not, without more, create an appealable legal issue. Detailed submissions cannot convert factual disputes into questions of law, particularly where the matters have already been considered by the first-instance judge. No order for costs was made.

The appellant sought permission to appeal from further preliminary-issue decisions of Mr Gabriel Moss QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division. The underlying dispute concerned beneficial interests in a flat, refurbishment expenditure and an alleged agreement that Mr Bedawy should receive a 10 per cent management fee. The judge held that the refurbishment expenses were recorded in the Accounts of Primrose document and that Mr Assuity had accepted those amounts.

The proposed grounds challenged the accounts, alleged duplication, the management fee, an alleged expenditure cap, revocation of the agreement, and the effect of the registered title. The central issue was whether those grounds raised a question of law suitable for an appeal.

Application refused. Lord Justice Longmore held that the proposed appeal sought to challenge factual findings made by Mr Moss on the further preliminary issues.

1. The appellant disputed whether he had agreed the amounts in the Accounts of Primrose document. He also challenged the alleged 10 per cent management fee, alleged duplication in the accounts, an alleged £10,000 cap on refurbishment expenditure, revocation of any agreement, and the significance of his wife’s contribution and registration on the title.
2. Those matters had been considered by the Deputy High Court Judge, some in his first judgment and the remainder in his second judgment. They were findings of fact. No question of law arose from the proposed grounds.
3. The Court of Appeal therefore had no proper basis to take a different view from the judge’s conclusions. Permission to appeal was refused.
4. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 16 September 2002, Lord Justice Longmore refused permission to appeal from the further preliminary-issue order.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 17 April 2002, Carnwarth LJ had refused an earlier application for permission to appeal from the first preliminary-issue decision.
3. Chancery Division: Mr Gabriel Moss QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, decided the preliminary issues on 18 January 2002 and made a further order, encapsulated on 20 May 2002, concerning refurbishment expenses and the management fee.