Makhni v Global Hotels Ltd & Ors

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds merely challenge factual findings and the applicant has no real prospect of success. An appellate court is extremely slow to interfere with findings made by a trial judge who heard the witnesses over several days, particularly where cogent reasons support the assessment of credibility and reliability. A trial judge may also exclude witness evidence as a case-management measure where it is peripheral or irrelevant to the issues and its exclusion is necessary to keep the litigation within reasonable bounds.

Kuldeep Makhni sought permission to appeal from the judgment of His Honour Judge Mayor QC, given on 11 March 2002 in the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Leicester District Registry. The judge dismissed claims against Global Hotels Ltd and Mr and Mrs Faqir concerning an alleged employment contract, unpaid salary, a cheque, the sale of goods, assault, eviction, conversion and stolen property. Mr Makhni challenged the exclusion of statements from ten proposed witnesses and disputed the trial judge’s factual and credibility findings. The central issue was whether those grounds disclosed a real prospect of success on appeal.

Application refused. Lord Justice Dyson refused permission to appeal.

1. The proposed appeal was directed principally, and in substance exclusively, to findings of fact. The trial judge had heard the witnesses over a five-day trial, considered the extensive documentary evidence and gave cogent reasons for rejecting Mr Makhni’s account and preferring the defendants’ evidence.
2. An appellate court is extremely slow to disturb findings of fact made by a trial judge who heard the witnesses. A disagreement with the judge’s assessment of documents, explanations and credibility does not establish a real prospect of success.
3. The judge’s order restricting the evidence of ten proposed witnesses was a case-management decision. The statements considered by the Court of Appeal were, at best, of peripheral relevance and did not bear on whether the claims were likely to succeed. The judge was therefore not shown to have erred in excluding them in the interests of keeping the litigation within reasonable bounds.
4. Mr Makhni’s further submissions concerning resignation, unpaid salary and the documentary evidence had already been considered by the trial judge. They did not demonstrate any real prospect that the judgment would be overturned. The formal order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 2 July 2002, Lord Justice Dyson refused Mr Makhni’s application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Leicester District Registry: His Honour Judge Mayor QC dismissed Mr Makhni’s claims in their entirety on 11 March 2002.