Aslam v Aviva Insurance Group

An appeal should not proceed where it has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard. An appellate court is very reluctant to interfere with a trial judge’s findings of fact. That restraint applies to findings of primary fact, evaluations of facts and inferences drawn from them, unless intervention is compelled. A procedural complaint will not justify an appeal where the alleged irregularity did not materially affect the trial judge’s ultimate conclusions.

Mr Aslam applied for permission to appeal against a judgment of Mr Recorder Butler in the Manchester County Court dated 8 February 2013. The Recorder dismissed his claim against Aviva and ordered him to pay its costs.

The claim concerned Aviva’s alleged failure to indemnify Mr Aslam under a business insurance policy for equipment said to have been stolen during an armed burglary. The Recorder rejected Mr Aslam’s evidence and found that he had not established the loss, purchase of the equipment or occurrence of the burglary. Mr Aslam also alleged procedural unfairness because he received the court bundles only on the evening before trial.

1. Permission refused. The application was dismissed because an appeal would have no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard.
2. The court emphasised the established appellate restraint applicable to findings made by a trial judge. Appellate intervention is generally inappropriate not only in relation to primary facts, but also in relation to the evaluation of facts and the inferences drawn from them, unless the circumstances compel it. The Recorder had an ample evidential basis for rejecting Mr Aslam’s account, including his assertions about the crime reference, the correspondence, the alleged collusion and the purchase of the equipment.
3. The procedural-fairness ground also had no real prospect of success. The Recorder had made a case-management decision about the court bundles. Even assuming that some documents were not considered, they could at most have supported the purchase of the equipment. They could not undermine the conclusions on the other essential elements of the claim, including whether the equipment was stolen in the alleged burglary and whether the policy conditions had been complied with. Mr Aslam therefore failed to show that any omission had materially affected the ultimate conclusions.
4. The judgment and consequential costs order below remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mr Aslam’s application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
• Manchester County Court: Mr Recorder Butler dismissed the claim on 8 February 2013 and ordered Mr Aslam to pay Aviva’s costs.