Harrison v Parisbond Ltd

An appellate court should not reopen a trial judge’s findings of fact or practical inferences drawn from evidence merely because a party advances a competing account. Where the judge has considered the evidence and no arguable error is identified, permission should be refused. Unsigned draft agreements may provide evidence of the agreement reached, although they are not themselves the contract. A plausible construction may be preferred where it accords with the surrounding circumstances and factual findings. Grounds for which permission was not granted must be renewed before the appellate court if they are to be pursued.

Mr Harrison obtained judgment in Lincoln County Court on contractual claims against Parisbond Ltd following a three-day trial before Mr Recorder Maw. Parisbond challenged the decision on six grounds. Permission had been granted only for the sixth ground, concerning the deduction of tax and national insurance from damages for loss of earnings. That ground was not opposed, and the parties had begun agreeing the appropriate deductions. Grounds 1 to 5, which challenged the recorder’s factual findings, contractual conclusions and aspects of quantum, were nevertheless included in the notice of appeal and renewed before the Court of Appeal. The central questions were whether those grounds could be pursued without permission and whether any had a realistic prospect of success.

Lord Justice Buxton delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Keene agreeing. The application was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded half of the day’s costs.

1. Permission and procedural scope. Grounds 1 to 5 had not been authorised by the recorder. They had no independent life apart from ground 6, which was unopposed. Permission from the Court of Appeal was therefore required before those grounds could be pursued. The unusual procedure adopted by the appellant was noted as a possible subject of procedural revision.
2. Factual findings and agreement. The recorder had considered the competing evidence in detail and was entitled to accept Mr Harrison’s account. The unsigned draft agreements were not themselves the contract, but were capable of evidencing what had been agreed. The inference that an experienced businessman would not have undertaken the drafting process without meaning was rationally available on the evidence.
3. Goodwill payment. The recorder was entitled to conclude that the £15,000 goodwill payment became payable when Mr Harrison left the business. That construction was commercially plausible because he left behind the benefit of work undertaken to improve the business. The contrary evidence was expressly rejected as fabricated.
4. Other factual and quantum complaints. The recorder adequately explained the different conclusion concerning the vehicle by reference to later transactions. He was also entitled to rely on proper, albeit unaudited, company accounts when calculating the deduction for further employment. More extensive reasoning was unnecessary in that circumstance.

The proposed challenges involved findings of fact and practical inferences based on evidence. The Court of Appeal saw no realistic prospect that the judgment could successfully be challenged.

1. Lincoln County Court: Mr Recorder Maw gave judgment for Mr Harrison on contractual claims following a three-day trial.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant renewed grounds of appeal. Permission was refused on grounds 1 to 5; ground 6 was unopposed and the application was dismissed, with the respondent awarded half of the day’s costs.