De Maynard v Adu

An appellate court should not grant permission to appeal merely because a party disputes a trial judge’s assessment of competing oral evidence. Where the judge heard the witnesses, made clear findings on credibility, and those findings are unaffected by the additional material relied on, there is no proper basis for appellate interference with the factual conclusions. A plan or supporting documents do not justify permission unless they materially undermine those findings. The application was therefore refused.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from the dismissal of his road traffic accident claim by His Honour Judge Hornby at Bow County Court. The trial judge had heard evidence from both drivers and preferred the defendant’s account. The claimant relied on a scale plan, other documents, and concerns about questions asked during his evidence concerning passengers in his car. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed any proper basis for interfering with the trial judge’s factual and credibility findings.

Lord Justice Latham, sitting in a single judgment, refused permission to appeal.

1. Trial findings. The trial judge had heard the evidence of both parties and had reached clear conclusions of fact. He preferred the defendant’s evidence and identified several respects in which the claimant’s evidence was not credible.
2. Appellate interference. The Court of Appeal found no proper basis on which it could interfere with those conclusions. The material placed before the appellate court did not affect the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence or the factual findings reached after hearing the witnesses.
3. Additional material. The claimant’s scale plan and other documents did not establish that his account was more likely or otherwise undermine the judgment. Nor did his complaint about questions concerning HIV-positive passengers demonstrate a basis for appellate intervention, particularly in light of the trial judge’s other stated reasons for rejecting his evidence.
4. Order. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Latham refused permission to appeal.
2. Bow County Court: His Honour Judge Hornby preferred the defendant’s evidence and dismissed the claimant’s road traffic accident claim.