Sun Life (Unit Services) Limited v Moore

On an application for permission to appeal, the appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of conflicting oral evidence where the judge heard and evaluated the witnesses. Documents incorporated into employment arrangements do not necessarily create contractual promises. Forecasts and descriptions of expected support may be aspirational, particularly when read with recruitment warnings and the evidence about the relevant industry. Their legal effect depends on their language and context. Where those findings leave no realistic prospect of establishing the alleged misrepresentation or breach of contract, permission to appeal should be refused.

Sun Life sought to recover sums advanced to Mr Moore, a former employee, under employment-related loan and guaranteed option arrangements. Mr Moore alleged that he had been induced to enter the arrangements by misrepresentations about the support and business leads Sun Life would provide, and that Sun Life had breached its contractual commitments.

The Cambridge County Court heard conflicting evidence about the recruitment discussions and considered the wording of the Sun Life Launch Programme. His Honour Judge Sennitt gave judgment on 14 December 2001. Mr Moore applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the factual findings and the documentary material disclosed any realistic basis for appellate intervention.

Application refused. Lord Justice Buxton concluded that there was no prospect of the Court of Appeal revisiting the case.

1. Oral evidence and factual findings. The County Court judge heard both Mr Moore and the interviewer, Mr Crimmen, and resolved their substantial conflict of evidence. The judge found that Mr Moore’s belief in the alleged promises arose from his own assumptions and expectations, rather than from anything Mr Crimmen had said. That was a finding of fact made after hearing the witnesses, and the Court of Appeal would not interfere with it.
2. Contractual documentation. The Sun Life Launch Programme was stated to be incorporated into the contractual documentation, but its language remained important. The forecasts about the prospects of a consultant and the availability of warm leads were expressed cautiously and aspirationally. They described what the employer expected from the employee rather than promising what the employer would do. The County Court’s assessment of the documents in the context of the evidence and the particular industry was not open to appellate challenge.
3. Effect of warnings. To the extent that Mr Crimmen had warned Mr Moore that matters described in the documentation might not be fulfilled, Mr Moore could not thereafter rely on those documents as promises of performance. This reinforced the conclusion that the principal allegations of misrepresentation and breach could not succeed.

The formal order was that the application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal refused.
2. Cambridge County Court: judgment of His Honour Judge Sennitt dated 14 December 2001, from which permission to appeal was sought.