Marson v Fattah

A court should not summarily dismiss a claim based on an alleged oral agreement where material questions of fact require oral evidence. Payment of the creditor’s account is not necessarily payment of a separate debt owed by a co-obligor under that agreement. Where a third party’s payments are relied on, the court must determine, on evidence, the nature of the alleged liability and whether the payments discharged it. A litigant in person is entitled to a fair determination of those factual issues. A judgment must give reasons, even if brief; an appellate court should not have to reconstruct them from a transcript.

Mrs Marson claimed £16,734.15 from Mr Fattah under an alleged oral agreement that he would repay sums spent on a credit card issued on her account. Mr Fattah denied the agreement and use of the card, alternatively asserting that payments made by Mrs Marson’s mother discharged any liability. The Sheffield County Court Recorder dismissed the claim without hearing evidence or giving a reasoned judgment, apparently treating repayment of the credit-card debt as repayment of Mr Fattah’s alleged debt. The appeal concerned whether that summary dismissal was permissible and whether the mother’s payments extinguished any liability.

Appeal allowed and retrial ordered. The Court of Appeal set aside paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Recorder’s order and discharged the charging order securing the interim costs payment.

1. The Recorder had wrongly dismissed the claim without hearing evidence. The alleged oral agreement required determination of what Mr Fattah had agreed to repay, including whether his obligation extended to the credit-card debt after refinancing. Those matters could be resolved only by oral evidence. Failure to disclose refinancing documents might affect a claim for interest, but did not dispose of the pleaded claim.
2. The court distinguished between repayment of the indebtedness owed to the credit-card company and repayment of the separate debt allegedly owed by Mr Fattah to Mrs Marson. Repayment of the credit-card company did not, on the pleaded agreement, necessarily repay or extinguish Mr Fattah’s liability.
3. The court declined to decide whether the liability was joint and several. Even if Mrs Harfield and Mr Fattah were jointly and severally liable, payments made by Mrs Harfield might have been gifts to Mrs Marson and would not necessarily discharge Mr Fattah’s debt. The nature of the liability, the character and appropriation of the payments, and any balance due required evidence.
4. Mrs Marson, who appeared in person, was entitled to a reasoned judgment. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the common-law requirements of fairness, required reasons sufficient to explain why the claim had been dismissed. It was improper for the appellate court to infer the decision from the hearing transcript because the Recorder had given no reasoned judgment.
5. The court made no final ruling on whether Mrs Marson had departed from her pleaded case. It observed that permission to amend pleadings would usually be given where the other party was not taken by surprise, subject to the need for new evidence where relevant.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal, set aside paragraphs 1 and 3 of the order, discharged the charging order, and ordered a retrial.
• Sheffield County Court: On 11 February 2009, Recorder Smith dismissed Mrs Marson’s claim and ordered costs without giving a reasoned judgment.