Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust Ltd v Richens

On an appeal against factual findings, the appellant must show that the trial judge fundamentally misunderstood the issue or evidence, plainly failed to take relevant evidence into account, or reached a conclusion which the evidence could not support. An appellate court must assume, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, that the trial judge considered the whole of the evidence. A witness’s evidence does not have to be accepted merely because it was unchallenged, although unchallenged corroborative evidence may carry particular weight. The relevance of a factor, such as payment of rent, does not depend on its being determinative.

The claimant, a social landlord, appealed against the County Court’s dismissal of its possession claim concerning premises occupied by the respondent. The County Court found that the respondent and his relatives had become joint tenants, rejected reliance on the mandatory and discretionary possession grounds under Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, and declined to order possession on the admitted discretionary breaches.

The appeal challenged the factual finding of a joint tenancy, the treatment of documentary and other evidence, and the use of rent payments as a relevant factor. Permission was granted on the first five grounds, while permission on the remaining grounds was refused. The central issue was whether the County Court had made an appealable error in reaching its factual conclusions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The County Court’s finding that a joint tenancy had been offered and accepted was within the range of conclusions reasonably open to it.
2. On an appeal against findings of fact, the appellant must establish that the judge fundamentally misunderstood the issue or evidence, plainly failed to take relevant evidence into account, or reached a conclusion which the evidence could not support. The question is not whether the appellate judge might have reached a different conclusion. The high hurdle reflects the trial judge’s immersion in the oral and documentary evidence: [2019] AC 358.
3. The County Court had misdirected itself, in part, by combining the questions whether a meeting occurred, whether a joint tenancy was offered, and whether it was accepted. That misdirection was not decisive. The judge’s ultimate conclusion showed that she had considered the evidence and reached a conclusion open to her.
4. An appellate court must assume, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, that the trial judge considered the whole of the evidence. Express reference to evidence elsewhere in the judgment may suffice, particularly where the judge stated that she had taken all the evidence into account: [2014] 1 WLR 2600.
5. A witness’s evidence need not be accepted merely because it was not challenged in cross-examination. However, unchallenged corroborative evidence may be a relevant and significant factor in assessing the trial judge’s conclusion.
6. The County Court had not reversed the evidential burden. Its treatment of the absence of documents from the landlord’s records merely gave that absence limited weight. Nor was it an error of law to treat the respondent’s payment of rent as an additional, albeit weak, relevant factor.
7. Since the challenges to the factual finding failed, the grounds concerning possession under Grounds 7 and 9 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 did not arise.

• High Court (Chancery Division) — The appeal from the County Court at Oxford was dismissed.
• County Court at Oxford — HHJ Melissa Clarke dismissed the possession claim and discharged the anti-social behaviour injunction.