Preece v Edwards

A finding of forgery based on written expert reports must follow a careful and balanced analysis of all material evidence. The judge must address material uncontradicted evidence, particularly evidence bearing directly on authenticity.

A court should not draw adverse inferences from alleged inconsistencies or allegedly false documents where the point was not put to the witness and no explanation was obtained. If the reasoning cannot support the decisive factual finding, the dismissal should be set aside and a retrial ordered where the truth remains unresolved.

The claimant alleged that the defendant had breached a contract relating to renovation works at the claimant’s property. The trial judge, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court list at Chester County Court, dismissed the claim after finding that two documents relied on by the claimant were forgeries and that the defendant had only been engaged to draw plans.

The claimant appealed, challenging the judge’s treatment of conflicting handwriting evidence and the adverse inferences drawn from alleged inconsistencies and an email. He also sought to rely on further evidence, raising the central questions whether the trial reasoning was adequate and whether the claim could be determined without a retrial.

Richards LJ, with Davis LJ and Longmore LJ agreeing, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dismissing the claim.

1. The trial judge had been placed in a difficult position because the handwriting experts had not attended to give oral evidence. He was nevertheless required to conduct a careful and balanced analysis of their reports together with the other evidence. It was legitimate to consider the way in which the reports were argued, but that was not sufficient. The judge failed to address Dr Giles’s uncontradicted opinion that document 2 was probably genuine, despite its obvious implications for the authenticity of document 1. Finding that both documents were forgeries without addressing that evidence was a serious deficiency in reasoning.
2. The judge was also wrong to rely on alleged inconsistencies concerning grants and council tax without putting the point to the claimant and considering his explanation. The council correspondence did not establish the alleged inconsistency. The email concerning quotations was suspicious, but the allegation that it involved false quotations had likewise not been put to the claimant. It was therefore wrong to draw an adverse inference from it. The judge was entitled to consider the misspelling and the comma in the dates, but those matters had limited significance.
3. The Court of Appeal declined to enter judgment for the claimant because the truth remained open. The appropriate remedy was a fresh trial on liability only. The parties did not challenge the figure of £154,800 as the quantum of the claim.

The case was transferred to Birmingham County Court and removed from the Technology and Construction Court list. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal. The costs of the first trial were reserved to the judge hearing the retrial.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2012] EWCA Civ 902 — appeal allowed; dismissal set aside; fresh trial on liability ordered.
• Chester County Court, Technology and Construction Court list: His Honour Judge Halbert dismissed the contractual claim by judgment and order of 16 March.