Riaz Ahmad v Latimer Lee LLP

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for an appeal. An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact based on oral evidence where the trial was fair and the judge evaluated the evidence. Failure to disclose a document does not necessarily preclude reliance on oral evidence that the document existed, particularly where the party does not rely on the document itself. A settlement agreement may be powerful evidence of the reasonableness of charges, and may be treated as conclusive as to quantum absent a very strong challenge.

The applicant renewed an application under CPR PD52B paragraph 7.2 for permission to appeal against a Manchester County Court judgment. The County Court had awarded the respondent solicitors £25,763.60, with interest and Part 36 uplifts, and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim concerning sums retained from property transactions.

The proposed appeal challenged findings concerning a settlement agreement, assignment of the partnership’s assets to the respondent, signed terms and conditions and a director’s guarantee, disclosure, pleading fairness and the assessment of fees. Permission had previously been refused by Johnson J. The central issue was whether any ground had a realistic prospect of success or whether there was a compelling reason to grant permission.

1. Application refused. The appeal had no realistic prospect of success and there was no compelling reason to grant permission. The stay ordered on 9 June 2020 was discharged.
2. The County Court judge dealt with the settlement agreement in the context of the pleaded defence to the counterclaim. He did not determine the respondent’s claim on the unpleaded settlement-agreement basis. The claim was decided on freestanding grounds. The applicant therefore had a full and fair opportunity to address the relevant evidence, and the complaint of prejudicial reliance failed.
3. The judge was entitled to make findings that an assignment had taken place and that the applicant knew of it. CPR 31.21 did not preclude the respondent from relying on oral evidence because the respondent was not relying on the assignment document itself. Non-inclusion of a document in a disclosure list did not oblige the judge to find that it had never existed, nor did it require an adverse inference.
4. The findings that terms and conditions had been sent to and signed by the applicant in relation to the company work were findings of fact supported by the oral evidence. The appellate court would not interfere with those findings. The pleaded claim invoked the terms and conditions, and the director-liability provision was squarely in issue because it formed part of the applicant’s own defence.
5. The judge was entitled to treat the settlement agreement as powerful and compelling evidence of the reasonableness of the charges and work done. In the circumstances, it was also open to him to treat the contractual agreement as conclusive as to quantum unless there was a very strong challenge.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): permission to appeal was refused on renewal. The stay was discharged.
• Manchester County Court: on 4 May 2020, judgment was entered for the respondent for £25,763.60 with interest and uplifts, and the applicant’s counterclaim was dismissed.
• High Court: Johnson J refused permission to appeal on 2 December 2020; the order was sealed on 18 December 2020.