Crinion & Anor v IG Markets Ltd

A judge may make extensive use of a party’s written submissions, but must acknowledge that use where appropriate and demonstrate independent, even-handed consideration of the opposing case. Wholesale adoption of one side’s submissions creates an unacceptable appearance that the judicial function has been surrendered.

A seriously defective judgment does not automatically make the decision unjust. An appellate court must examine the judgment in the context of the evidence and submissions. The decision may stand if that examination establishes that the judge independently evaluated the decisive issues and gave sufficiently apparent reasons. A judge need not expressly address every submission where the reasons for rejecting it are otherwise clear.

The appellants, a father and son, incurred substantial liabilities through accounts used for contracts-for-differences trading. IG Markets Ltd recovered judgment in the Birmingham Mercantile Court for €824,074.18 against the father and €1,386,045.03 against the son. Their counterclaims were dismissed.

Almost the whole of the trial judgment, including its structure and approximately 94% of its words, had been taken from the respondent’s written closing submissions. The appellants did not challenge the merits. They contended that the judge had failed to exercise independent judgment or adequately address their cases, producing a serious procedural irregularity under rule 52.11(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The central issue was whether the form and content of the judgment showed that the judge had nevertheless independently evaluated the decisive issues and given adequate reasons.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The trial judge’s method of constructing the judgment was thoroughly bad practice and unacceptable. Almost wholesale adoption of one party’s submissions risked creating the appearance that the judge had failed to consider both cases independently and even-handedly. The more extensive the reliance on one party’s material, the greater the risk of both actual and apparent unfairness.

2. There is no inherent objection to a judge deriving extensive assistance from counsel’s submissions, including on facts, law and dispositive reasoning. Where this occurs, the judge must take care to show that contrary submissions have been fully considered and that the judge’s own independent judgment has been brought to bear. A reasoned judgment has the important function of explaining to the unsuccessful party why the case was lost.

3. A seriously defective judgment does not necessarily establish an injustice requiring appellate intervention. The court must examine the judgment in the context of the evidence and submissions. If that examination demonstrates that the judge performed the essential judicial function and that the reasons for the dispositive conclusions are sufficiently apparent, the decision may stand.

4. On close examination, the trial judge had engaged independently with the decisive questions. He had addressed the principal challenges to the witnesses’ credibility and had given adequate reasons for rejecting the appellants’ cases on authority, ratification and the other dispositive issues. Although some responses were brief and much of their wording came from the respondent’s submissions, the judge’s own additions and the surrounding context showed why the appellants’ arguments failed.

5. A judge need not expressly recite every submission if the expressed reasoning makes clear why it was rejected. The regulatory arguments did not justify appellate relief because the decisive factual finding—that the father was properly classified as an intermediate customer in his own right—rendered the remaining points academic.

6. Underhill LJ gave the leading judgment. Sir Stephen Sedley and Longmore LJ agreed. A new trial would serve no purpose because all members of the court were satisfied that the trial judge had engaged with the appellants’ cases and that those cases lacked substance.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeals were dismissed by [2013] EWCA Civ 587. The court held that the trial judgment’s construction was seriously defective, but that close examination demonstrated independent judicial evaluation and sufficiently apparent reasons.

2. Birmingham Mercantile Court: HHJ Simon Brown QC upheld IG Markets Ltd’s claims, entered judgment for €824,074.18 against Tommy Crinion and €1,386,045.03 against Declan Crinion, and dismissed the counterclaims. No neutral citation is stated in the judgment.