Alliotts (A Firm) v Reynard

Permission to appeal requires proposed grounds with a real prospect of success. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with findings based on inferences from primary facts where those findings are unassailable. A trial judge may control oral submissions and intervene to assist a litigant in person or clarify the issues, provided the party has a full, fair and proper opportunity to present the case. Such case-management decisions do not infringe Article 6 merely because the judge limits time or adopts an active role.

Alliotts obtained judgment in the Queen’s Bench Division for unpaid fees guaranteed personally by Christopher Reynard. His counterclaim alleging breach of retainer, breach of duty and misrepresentation was dismissed. His application for permission to appeal was refused by the trial judge and subsequently on paper by the Court of Appeal.

On renewal, Reynard relied on alleged failures to take account of documentary evidence and alleged procedural unfairness, including inadequate assistance to a litigant in person, excessive judicial intervention and infringement of Article 6. The central questions were whether the proposed grounds disclosed an arguable basis for appellate interference and whether the trial had been unfair.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused. There was no order for costs, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was also refused.
2. The allegation of procedural unfairness was unfounded. The trial judge acted within his case-management discretion in limiting the time for Reynard’s closing oral submissions so as to avoid an unnecessary continuation of the hearing. Reynard had been given a full, fair and proper opportunity to present his case, and the judgment demonstrated that the judge had understood and addressed his points.
3. A judge may adopt an active role where this assists a litigant in person or ensures that the issues are fully understood. The fact that the judge intervenes, including during cross-examination, does not itself amount to descending improperly into the arena.
4. There was no infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The trial procedure afforded equality and fairness in substance, despite Reynard’s complaints about the conduct and management of the hearing.
5. The proposed challenge to the factual conclusions also had no substance. The judge had considered the documentary and oral evidence and had drawn inferences from the primary facts. Those findings, including the conclusions concerning the scope of the accountant’s duty and his knowledge of Howglen’s financial position, were unassailable in the Court of Appeal. The limited documentation provided on the permission application gave no basis for interference. The appeal therefore had no real prospect of success.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed on 5 February 2002. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. [2002] EWCA Civ 241
• Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Morrell entered judgment for Alliotts for £66,109.14 plus interest, dismissed Reynard’s counterclaim and ordered him to pay the costs of the claim and counterclaim. Permission to appeal was refused.
• Court of Appeal on paper: Permission to appeal was refused on 23 November 2001.