Foreprime Properties Ltd v Cheval Bridging Finance Ltd

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed challenge concerns factual valuation findings that fall within the trial judge’s reasonable decision-making range and has no realistic prospect of success. A judge may adopt a broad valuation methodology where the evidence does not permit reliable calculation of particular repair costs. Once the valuation finding stands, a sale at or above that value provides no basis for alleging that the mortgagee failed to obtain an appropriate price. Construction of a one-off document will not justify permission where the first-instance conclusion is plainly correct. A costs challenge also requires permission where the judge considered the litigation as a whole and had already marked procedural criticism in the costs order.

The claimant mortgaged a property securing a loan. Following arrears, the defendant enforced the security and sold the property. The claimant alleged that the mortgagee had failed to realise an appropriate price and challenged the valuation of the property, the treatment of repair costs, the construction of an Iskar letter, and the costs order.

After trial, the High Court dismissed the claim and entered judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim without awarding damages. The claimant renewed its application for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the valuation findings, contractual construction, and costs decision disclosed any realistic prospect of success.

1. Application refused. The renewed application concerned findings made by the trial judge after evaluating competing expert evidence. The judge was entitled to prefer two mutually corroborative contemporary measurements over measurements derived from small-scale plans. The conclusion on gross internal area fell well within the range of reasonable decision-making.
2. As to repair costs, neither expert could reliably establish the extent of the works required because neither had inspected the interior. The judge was therefore entitled to accept a broad, rough-and-ready deduction applied across the entire gross internal area. The evidence supported a valuation of £600,000, while the property had sold for £605,000. The complaint that the sale failed to achieve the appropriate value consequently fell away.
3. The construction of the Iskar letter was a one-off exercise. The trial judge’s conclusion that it did not deprive the mortgagee of facility fees and other charges was plainly correct and not arguably wrong. There was no realistic prospect of a successful appeal on that issue.
4. The costs challenge did not justify permission. The disclosure exercise had been defective, but the complaint had not been addressed at trial by seeking an adjournment or other appropriate relief. The judge had considered the litigation as a whole and had already deprived the defendant of part of its disclosure-related costs. His overall costs order disclosed no arguable error.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• High Court, Chancery Division: after trial, dismissed the claimant’s claim and entered judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim without an award of damages.