Bon Bleu Ltd v Perez & Anor

In civil litigation, an appellate court will rarely interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of a witness whom the judge saw and heard, particularly where the judge accepted that witness as truthful. A proposed appeal that merely seeks a different assessment of credibility, evidence or its weight ordinarily has no realistic prospect of success. Permission should therefore be refused where the disputed matters were for the trial judge and no proper basis for appellate interference is shown. A plainly erroneous figure in a drawn order may be corrected by the lower court under the slip rule, but that error did not justify permission to appeal.

Bon Bleu Ltd claimed the balance due for goods sold and delivered to a clothing business associated with Antonio Perez and Jane Miller. After hearing evidence from Mr Baker, the Mayor’s and City of London County Court, on 20 May 2002, entered judgment against Mr Perez. The drawn order stated a total of £63,883.34, although its listed components appeared to total approximately £53,000.

Mr Perez, acting in person, sought permission to appeal. He challenged the evidence supporting the debt, including whether credit had been extended, and relied on the apparent improbability that substantial debt would have been allowed to accumulate. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed any realistic prospect of successfully challenging the trial judge’s findings.

Application for permission to appeal dismissed. Ward LJ gave the judgment of the court.

1. The arithmetic error on the face of the County Court order should be corrected by that court under the slip rule. The order recorded £44,013.49 as the balance due and £9,869.85 as contractual interest, but stated an apparently incorrect total of £63,883.34.
2. In civil proceedings, where the trial judge has seen and heard a witness and accepts that witness as truthful, it is virtually impossible for the Court of Appeal to upset that finding. The trial judge was therefore entitled to find that money was due once Mr Baker’s evidence had been accepted.
3. Mr Perez’s further arguments did not provide a proper basis for appellate intervention. His acknowledgement to the police that he owed approximately £43,000 supported the claim, and his contention that the alleged trading practices made the debt unlikely was a matter for the trial judge. His changed position during the trial, including putting the claimant to proof, did not alter that conclusion.
4. Although the court expressed sympathy for Mr Perez’s position, it found no prospect of success in the proposed appeal and was therefore bound to dismiss the application. Any steps concerning lawful recovery of the debt or possible bankruptcy arrangements were matters for Mr Perez.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Ward LJ dismissed Mr Perez’s application for permission to appeal on 16 December 2002.
• Mayor’s and City of London County Court: His Honour Judge Marr Johnson entered judgment against Mr Perez on 20 May 2002. The Court of Appeal indicated that the apparent total on the drawn order should be corrected under the slip rule.