Mahajna v London School Of Business And Finance & Anor

On an appeal alleging procedural unfairness, the appellate court must assess objectively whether the proceedings as a whole respected the common-law and Article 6 fair-trial guarantees. The inquiry includes whether the appellant had an opportunity to advance and answer the case, and whether the judge’s procedural management deprived the appellant of a fair process.

Fairness must be assessed proportionately. A party has no right to unlimited hearing time, and reasonable case-management decisions do not establish unfairness merely because an unsuccessful party wanted more time. An appellate court reviewing factual or discretionary decisions must identify a material error, such as a failure to consider a relevant factor or a gap in logic, rather than substitute its own assessment.

The appellant appealed against quantum and costs orders made by His Honour Judge Murdoch in the County Court at Birmingham. The underlying claim concerned alleged misrepresentations and breach of contract relating to an MBA course. Liability had been established in part, but the quantum judge awarded £6,875, comprising course fees and damages for mental distress, and ordered the appellant to pay 30 per cent of the respondents’ costs.

Permission was granted on grounds alleging procedural unfairness, misunderstanding of the case, errors concerning interest, and error in the costs order. The central issues were whether the quantum hearing was unfair, whether material errors undermined the factual conclusions, and whether the costs decision fell outside the judge’s discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to establish that the quantum hearing was unjust because of serious procedural irregularity, that the quantum judgment contained a material appealable error, or that the costs order was wrong.
2. The appellate question in an alleged unfairness challenge was whether, viewed objectively and in the round, the appellant’s common-law and Article 6 fair-trial rights had been respected. The practical inquiry included whether the pleadings gave notice of the issues, whether the appellant had an opportunity to advance and answer the respondents’ case, and whether the judge’s procedural rulings deprived him of a fair process.
3. Fairness had to be assessed proportionately. The court was entitled to control time and resources, and no party had a right to unlimited time. The judge had allowed substantial oral evidence and submissions, accommodated the litigant in person, and dealt fairly with the documentary difficulties. The procedural-fairness ground therefore failed.
4. A complaint that the first-instance judge misunderstood the case did not itself establish an appealable error. The appellant had to show that the alleged misunderstanding produced a material error in the findings. Consistently with Re Sprintroom Limited [2019] BCC 1031 at [76], the appellate court looked for a gap in logic, inconsistency, or failure to consider a material factor undermining the conclusion. Minor factual or arithmetical errors which had no consequence did not justify intervention.
5. The assessment of interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 fell within the judge’s discretion. The judge had no power to award compound interest for breach of contract. The uncertainty surrounding the interest start date was at most de minimis and did not justify variation.
6. Costs were also discretionary. Applying the approach reflected in Tanfern v CameronMacdonald [2001] 1 WLR 1311, intervention required an error of principle or a relevant consideration being overlooked such that the ultimate order was wrong. The order requiring payment of 30 per cent of the respondents’ costs was within the judge’s substantial discretion.

• County Court at Birmingham: Judge Allen upheld certain misrepresentation and breach-of-contract claims on liability. His Honour Judge Murdoch later awarded £6,875 on quantum and ordered the appellant to pay 30 per cent of the respondents’ costs.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Permission to appeal was granted on Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5. Saini J dismissed the appeal.