Alpha Estates (Essex) Ltd v Singh & Anor

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s findings of primary fact, evaluations or inferences unless there is a compelling reason to do so. A challenge must address the judgment at the level of its legal or evidential basis, rather than dissecting individual strands of evidence or arguments which did not persuade the trial judge. Where the trial judge had a proper evidential basis for finding that no unlawful agreement existed, an appeal against that finding will lack a realistic prospect of success.

Alpha Estates sought specific performance of an agreement for the sale of a freehold property. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that the written price of £1 million understated an allegedly agreed price of £2.2 million, in order to evade stamp duty. The trial judge rejected the defendants’ evidence that the higher price had been agreed and found that no illegal agreement had been established.

Permission to appeal was refused on paper. The Court of Appeal considered a renewed application, principally alleging that the trial judge had relied on irrelevant matters and failed to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether those complaints disclosed a realistic prospect of successfully challenging the findings of primary fact.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application disclosed no realistic prospect of success. The trial judge’s conclusion that there was no illegal agreement was not vulnerable to appellate attack.
2. The Court of Appeal applied the restraint described in Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5. Appellate courts should not interfere with findings of primary fact, the evaluation of facts, or inferences drawn from them unless compelled to do so.
3. The trial judge had evaluated the whole evidential picture, including the limited demand for comparable properties and the defendants’ straitened financial circumstances. Those matters provided a proper basis for the conclusion that negotiations could have resulted in a sale at the lower stated price.
4. It was insufficient to analyse separately each evidential strand or argument which the trial judge had not accepted. A first-instance judgment need give reasons sufficient to disclose its basis; it need not address every argument in detail. The complaints advanced therefore did not justify permission to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused on 21 May 2015.
• Central London Civil Justice Centre: Mr Recorder Morris-Coole rejected the defendants’ case that the contract was illegal because the stated price understated the true agreed price.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lewison LJ refused permission on paper on 22 April 2015.