Goodman v Faber Prest Steel

A trial judge assessing a witness whose credibility is central must test the oral evidence against objective facts, contemporary documents, motives and the overall probabilities. The advantage of seeing and hearing the witness does not justify disregarding documentary evidence that materially bears on the disputed account. If the judge prefers the oral evidence despite such evidence, the reasons for doing so should be explained. Where the central factual finding is unsafe, an appellate court should set aside the decision. It should not substitute its own factual conclusion where the relevant witness was not heard, but should ordinarily order a rehearing.

The claimant sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted, subject to a deduction for contributory negligence, and the issue at trial was the assessment of damages, particularly whether the accident caused the claimant’s knee, back and neck symptoms. Her Honour Judge Corbett accepted the claimant’s evidence and awarded £69,478.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to confront medical records and an email suggesting that the claimant had experienced no significant pain immediately after the accident. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled to accept the claimant’s account without explaining why the contradictory documentary evidence was rejected.

Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Moore-Bick delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Rimer and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division agreeing.

1. The case depended on the assessment of the claimant’s credibility and the factual finding that he had experienced knee and back pain immediately after the accident. Although an appellate court must respect the trial judge’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses, demeanour is an uncertain guide to reliability. In a case where credibility is central, oral evidence must be tested against objective facts, contemporary documents, the witness’s motives and the overall probabilities. The principle stated by Lord Goff in Armagas Ltd v Mundogas S.A. [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 applies beyond fraud cases.
2. The only evidence of immediate knee and back pain came from the claimant. The medical records, his account to a consultant, his account during an ergonomic assessment and his email indicated that he had been free from significant symptoms for a period after the accident and developed driving-related symptoms later. The judge was aware of that evidence but appeared to accept the claimant’s oral account without testing it against the documents or explaining why it was preferred. That failure affected the central issue and rendered the decision unsafe.
3. The Court of Appeal should not substitute its own conclusion because it had not heard the claimant give evidence. The judge’s order was therefore set aside and the matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal was allowed. The county court judgment and order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
2. Luton County Court — Her Honour Judge Corbett gave judgment for the claimant and awarded damages of £69,478.