Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd & Anor

Where material facts remain disputed, a civil trial should ordinarily be conducted on oral evidence. A judge should hear a relevant witness whom a party wishes to call before making findings against that witness’s evidence, unless the parties have agreed to have the issues determined on documents alone. Procedural difficulties caused by litigants in person do not justify depriving a party of a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence. The court also questioned, without deciding, whether the access-to-court approach in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NMS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576 should be revisited.

The respondent’s claims against Michael Wright Supplies Ltd and Turner Wright Investments Ltd concerned unpaid consideration for shares, consultancy fees and related accounting issues. After the proceedings were consolidated and transferred to the High Court, His Honour Judge Thornton QC determined the dispute principally on the written material. He ordered the transfer and re-registration of the shares, awarded sums to the respondent and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims.

The defendants appealed on the ground that they had not agreed to dispense with a trial and had wished to call the accountant whose evidence was materially relied upon by the judge. The central issue was whether the judge had acted procedurally unfairly by deciding disputed matters without hearing that witness.

1. Disposition. The appeal was unanimously allowed and the matter was remitted for rehearing, preferably before a different judge.
2. Requirement for oral evidence. A cardinal feature of civil procedure is that disputed matters at trial are ordinarily determined on oral evidence. The judge’s order had preserved the question whether further oral evidence and a further hearing were required. The Court of Appeal could not identify any agreement by the defendants to dispense with an oral hearing or to have the case determined solely on the documents.
3. Procedural unfairness. The defendants had repeatedly sought an oral hearing and wished to call Mr Pritchard, the accountant whose detailed evidence was described as invaluable to understanding the accounts. The judge relied heavily on that written evidence but reached findings contrary to it without hearing Mr Pritchard. In those circumstances, the relevant evidence should not have been excluded, and the resulting unfairness required the appeal to succeed.
4. Obiter observations. Sir Alan Ward questioned whether the Court of Appeal’s statement in Halsey [2004] EWCA Civ 576 that compelling truly unwilling parties to mediate could obstruct access to the court should be reconsidered. He also questioned the reliance placed on Deweer v Belgium (1980) 2 EHRR 439, and whether Civil Procedure Rules 1998 26.4(2)(b) permitted a court-initiated stay for mediation. Those questions were not decided.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2013] EWCA Civ 234, the appeal was allowed and the dispute was remitted for rehearing, preferably before a different judge.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: On 10 February 2012, His Honour Judge Thornton QC determined the claims on the written material, ordered the transfer and re-registration of the shares, awarded sums to the respondent, dismissed the counterclaims and made a costs order subject to detailed assessment.