Space Airconditioning Plc v Guy & Anor

An acknowledged factual error in a judgment should ordinarily be corrected after both parties have had an opportunity to make submissions. An appellate court may allow an appeal where an uncorrected error concerns a material fact and creates a real possibility that it affected other findings or conclusions. The court need not overturn any primary finding directly. It may instead hold that the resulting decision was wrong or unjust because of an irregularity under Part 52.11(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Where the error’s effect cannot safely be assessed and amplification by the trial judge is unavailable, a retrial before a different judge may be required.

Space Airconditioning plc claimed that its former sales manager, Adrian Guy, had wrongfully copied and used confidential customer information for the benefit of his new employer, Smith Brothers Stores Limited. Proudman J dismissed the claim after an expedited trial.

The judge’s reasons included a finding that customer summaries printed by Mr Guy did not contain important discount information. She later acknowledged that this finding was plainly wrong but declined to amend it and refused permission to appeal.

The central issue was whether the admitted and uncorrected factual error made the decision wrong, or unjust because of an irregularity, within Part 52.11(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The admitted error concerned a material aspect of the claim. The printed customer summaries did contain confidential discount information of the kind that might support the alleged purpose of extracting commercially useful documents. The court could not say with sufficient confidence that the error had no material effect on the judge’s remaining findings and conclusions: per Mummery LJ, Rimer and Sullivan LJJ agreeing.

2. Where a judge acknowledges an error in a judgment, the judgment should ordinarily be corrected unless there is a very good reason not to do so. A judgment should accurately record the findings and reasons for the decision. Before making a correction, the judge should give both sides an opportunity to make submissions on any objection to the proposed amendment.

3. The error could not confidently be treated as a mere typographical mistake. Its language and context did not support that explanation, and the judge herself had declined to characterise or correct it as such.

4. The appeal did not require the Court of Appeal directly to interfere with the judge’s primary findings. The relevant inquiry was the likely impact of an admitted error concerning a material, and possibly fundamental, fact. There was a real possibility that the mistaken understanding affected the assessment of the employee’s explanations, the alleged use of confidential information and the decision not to determine other factual issues.

5. Seeking amplified reasons from the trial judge, as contemplated in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409, was unavailable. The judge had already declined to amend or amplify her reasons after the error was identified.

6. The decision was either wrong or unjust because the retention of the erroneous finding amounted to an irregularity in the proceedings under Part 52.11(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The matter was remitted to the High Court for retrial before a different judge. Costs were reserved for further written submissions.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously. The dismissal of the claim was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for retrial before a different judge: [2012] EWCA Civ 1664.

2. High Court, Chancery Division: Proudman J dismissed the action by order dated 10 October 2011. Although she acknowledged that a finding in her judgment was plainly wrong, she declined to correct it and refused permission to appeal.

3. Permission to appeal: Lloyd LJ granted permission on 15 December 2011.