Medtia v Hamid

A counterclaim for disparate remedial items must be proved on the balance of probabilities by reference to specific items. General impressions cannot justify a positive global award where the evidence is sparse and the items were not closely examined. An appellate court may correct demonstrable double counting or a misconstruction of a schedule, and may inspect the evidence where that is necessary to identify an error of law, while not retrying factual issues. Interest remains discretionary and may be refused where the parties’ conduct and shared responsibility make that appropriate.

The claimant builder sued his client for the balance of the contract price. The defendant counterclaimed for the cost of remedial works and other alleged defects. Following a six-day hearing, the Recorder assessed the claim and counterclaim, first awarding the claimant £7,199 and later revising the judgment to give the defendant £6,898.75.

The claimant appealed, alleging fundamental errors in the revised arithmetic, double counting, and an unjustified global award of £2,500 for additional items. The appeal also raised the refusal of interest and the extent to which the Court of Appeal could examine the evidence.

Lord Justice Pill delivered the judgment, with which Sir William Aldous agreed. The appeal was allowed and judgment was substituted for the claimant in the sum of £2,238.03. Interest was refused.

1. Calculation errors. The Recorder had counted the counterclaim twice when adopting the claimant’s solicitor’s arithmetic and had misread the annexed Scott Schedule by treating figures in the allowed column as reductions. The schedule’s format, entries and references to duplicated items showed that the reductions column had to be totalled and deducted from the counterclaim.
2. Global award. A judge must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that specific items justify a particular sum. A succession of nil findings cannot produce a positive figure. The evidence concerning the additional items was insufficient to support the global award of £2,500, which could not stand on appellate scrutiny. The Court nevertheless restored £288 for an item previously treated as duplicative, because the removal of the £2,500 award otherwise resulted in a double deduction.
3. Appellate function. The Court of Appeal was not a trial court and would not receive fresh evidence or permit factual matters to be reargued. It was entitled, however, to examine the documents where the complaint was that the Recorder had misconstrued or failed to take account of evidence, since that could amount to an error of law.
4. Interest. The Recorder had exercised a discretion by reference to the parties’ conduct and shared responsibility for delay. That approach applied equally after the claimant succeeded on appeal, so no interest was awarded.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2004] EWCA Civ 691, the appeal was allowed and judgment for the claimant was substituted.
2. Oldham County Court — After a six-day hearing, the Recorder delivered an initial judgment and a revised judgment. The revised judgment awarded the first defendant £6,898.75.