Hanfy v Assuity & Ors

An appellate court will not ordinarily entertain a point that was not raised at trial, or reopen contested evidence and documentary issues merely because a litigant in person had difficulty presenting the material. A unilateral statement by one participant that an agreement is revoked does not, without acceptance by the other parties, establish revocation of the agreement. Where those matters provide no proper basis for appellate intervention, permission to appeal should be refused.

The dispute concerned interests arising from an agreement to purchase residential property. The Chancery Division, with Mr Gabriel Moss QC sitting as deputy High Court judge, preferred the claimant’s evidence and gave judgment against the applicant on the material issues. The applicant sought permission to appeal, relying on a statement in a statutory demand, alleged revocation of the agreement, and bank statements said to contain further information. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether those points justified reopening the case.

Decision

1. Permission refused. The applicant’s principal point was that the agreement had been revoked by wording in a statutory demand. He accepted that the point had not been made to the deputy judge.
2. In any event, the wording was, at most, a unilateral statement by one participant. There was no indication that the other parties accepted it as revoking the agreement. It therefore provided no basis for remitting the matter or reopening the judgment.
3. The applicant also argued that the deputy judge should have called for bank statements. That was an attempt to reopen evidential issues after trial. The matters were too late to justify appellate intervention, although the court recognised the difficulties often faced by litigants in person when assembling and presenting material.
4. The application was refused. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Carnwath refused the application for permission to appeal.
2. Chancery Division: Mr Gabriel Moss QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, gave judgment against the applicant on the material issues on 18 January 2002.