Bassano & Anor v Battista

A judgment must give satisfactory reasons which make the basis of the decision clear, but the reasons need not address every argument or factual matter. The content of the duty depends on the circumstances. In a straightforward dispute turning on oral evidence, it may suffice to state that one witness is believed rather than another, provided the essential reasoning is apparent.

An appellate court may examine the evidence and documents before the trial judge to understand reasoning which was not clearly expressed. It should respect credibility findings where the judge properly used the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and assessed the overall probabilities.

Homeowners engaged a builder to complete works at their property. A dispute arose over whether the agreed daily labour charge was to be passed entirely to the individual workers, with the builder acting as the homeowners’ agent, or whether it was the builder’s own charge. VAT treatment and the parties’ competing oral evidence were central to the dispute.

His Honour Judge Serota QC tried a preliminary issue in Milton Keynes County Court and accepted the builder’s account. The homeowners appealed, alleging that the judge had given inadequate reasons, had mishandled the credibility evidence and commercial probabilities, and had failed properly to consider VAT matters. They also applied to adduce evidence about the builder’s earlier turnover.

1. Appeal and fresh-evidence application dismissed. The trial judge gave reasons sufficient to satisfy the common law and Article 6 standards. The dispute was a straightforward factual contest depending largely on the assessment of three witnesses. The judge properly used the advantage of seeing and hearing them and assessed their evidence against the commercial probabilities.
2. Per Lawrence Collins LJ, with whom Arden and Tuckey LJJ agreed, the duty to give reasons is an aspect of due process and justice. The parties, particularly the unsuccessful party, must be able to understand why the case was won or lost. A failure to give reasons may constitute an independent ground of appeal. The judge must explain the decision, although a simple statement that one witness is believed rather than another may suffice in a straightforward dispute about recollected events.
3. Reasons must be satisfactory but need not be exhaustive. A judge need not address every argument or factual detail. Arden LJ added that the judgment must identify the issues vital to the conclusion and explain their resolution. When the reasoning is not immediately apparent, an appellate court may examine the documents, evidence and issues before the judge to determine whether the reasons can properly be deduced from the record.
4. The judge was entitled to accept the builder as an honest witness despite errors in chronology and possible carelessness or excessive optimism about VAT. He was also entitled to rely on the commercial reality of the arrangements and to give little weight to untested evidence concerning another building project. His credibility assessment disclosed no proper basis for appellate interference.
5. The proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy the approach in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489. The builder’s turnover had been in issue well before trial, it could have been investigated earlier, and no cogent explanation for the lack of reasonable diligence was given. The evidence was directed principally at reversing an assessment of credibility and did not justify overriding finality.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application to adduce fresh evidence was refused and the homeowners’ appeal was dismissed: [2007] EWCA Civ 370.
2. Milton Keynes County Court: His Honour Judge Serota QC determined the preliminary issue in favour of the builder, accepting his account of the contractual terms. No citation is stated.