G & J Greenall Group Ltd v G4s Service Solutions (UK) Ltd

Permission to appeal may properly be granted where it is arguable that the first-instance court relied on very general considerations which were inadequate to discharge the claimants’ burden of proof. That issue may be particularly arguable where the claimants had not undertaken an investigation which, on the appellant’s case, might reasonably have been expected. The appeal court may also require sufficient hearing time to digest the factual material and may direct that the appeal be heard by a court of three.

The appellant renewed its application for permission to appeal after permission had been refused on the papers by Longmore LJ. The proposed appeal was against a judgment given by Mr Recorder Garside QC in the Manchester County Court on 4 July 2014. The appellant challenged the adequacy of the Recorder’s approach to the factual material and the discharge of the claimants’ burden of proof.

Lord Justice Underhill had not heard oral submissions. Having considered the papers and the advocate’s statement, he considered the proposed grounds arguable and granted permission. He also gave directions for the constitution and preparation of the appeal.

1. Permission granted. On the renewed application, Lord Justice Underhill considered it arguable that the Recorder’s reliance on very general considerations was inadequate to discharge the claimants’ burden of proof, particularly because they had not carried out an investigation which, on the appellant’s submissions, might reasonably have been expected.
2. The more elaborate arguments in the skeleton argument were potentially vulnerable because they appeared to re-argue what inferences could be drawn from particular pieces of evidence. The advocate’s statement, however, identified a more general and potentially substantial point about the approach adopted below.
3. A proper assessment of that point required a clear understanding of the factual material before the Recorder. The court therefore retained the factual grounds of appeal and advised the appellant to be selective in presenting the particular factual matters relied upon at the hearing.
4. The appeal was directed to be heard by a court of three, one member of which could be a High Court judge. No specialist expertise was required, although general commercial expertise was identified as the most appropriate listing preference if guidance was needed. The hearing was allotted one and a half days, and the appeal bundle was directed to include the parties’ skeleton arguments below and any notes referred to in oral submissions.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application, permission to appeal was granted against the judgment of Mr Recorder Garside QC dated 4 July 2014. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Longmore LJ.