Abood v Balal

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s carefully reached finding of fact on a stark and confusing evidential issue where no arguable error is shown. Complaints about witness pressure or procedural difficulties provide no basis for permission where they were considered at trial and no prejudice is demonstrated.

The applicant sought permission to appeal, and a stay of execution, against an order of His Honour Judge Wakefield in the Central London County Court. The judge dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim for repayment of a claimed £62,000 loan and directed that the net proceeds of sale of the secured property be paid to the claimant. The dispute depended principally on whether the money had been paid. The applicant relied on conflicting witness statements, documentary acknowledgements and alleged pressure on witnesses. He also complained of difficulties arising from appearing in person and receiving the trial bundle late. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment given by Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, refused the application for permission to appeal and the associated application for a stay.

1. The appeal concerned a stark issue of fact: whether the applicant had paid £62,000 to the claimant. The trial judge had been faced with a thoroughly confusing evidential picture, including witnesses who had withdrawn or repudiated earlier statements.
2. The trial judge dealt with that evidence carefully. He disregarded statements from witnesses who did not give oral evidence and whose earlier accounts had subsequently been withdrawn. He also rejected an unproved statement purportedly made by a further witness. The judge relied on the surrounding evidence, including the claimant’s acknowledgements in the loan agreement and legal charge, the absence of demands for repayment, and alterations to the sum stated in the agreement.
3. The applicant’s case that witnesses had been pressured was before the trial judge and was taken into account. The complaint that the applicant, who appeared in person and whose first language was not English, had been prejudiced by the late receipt of the trial bundle also failed. The documents had already been disclosed and contained no surprises.
4. The finding that no part of the £62,000 had been paid was unassailable in the Court of Appeal. None of the proposed grounds had any substance, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal and a stay of execution refused.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Wakefield dismissed the counterclaim and directed payment of the net proceeds of sale to the claimant. Permission to appeal was refused by the judge.