Alison Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Limited

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s findings of primary fact, evaluative conclusions or inferences merely because another view is plausible or preferable. Intervention is justified only where no reasonable judge could have reached the decision, or where the treatment of the evidence makes the conclusion rationally insupportable. Failure to mention particular evidence is insufficient. Similar caution applies to findings involving expert evidence. On the facts found, the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The decision was confined to the evidence in the individual case and made no wider determination about the model or its drainage design.

The claimant bought a luxury convertible from the defendant for £122,000. After rainwater entered the passenger footwell and damaged the vehicle’s electrical components, she claimed relief under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

HHJ Pearce held that a blocked drainage channel caused the flooding, that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, and that the claimant had validly exercised the final right to reject. The order required repayment of £117,000, subject to a deduction for use, and payment of £1,334 damages.

The defendant appealed, initially challenging both the factual finding and the application of section 9. At the hearing it pursued only the challenge to the inference that the drainage channel had been cleared during a May 2019 service. The central issue was whether that finding was plainly wrong.

The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Phillips gave the judgment. Lord Justice Snowden and Lord Justice Green agreed.

1. Appellate review of fact. The relevant test was whether the finding that the drainage channel had been cleared in May 2019 was one that no reasonable judge could have reached. A plausible or preferable alternative interpretation of the evidence was insufficient. The appellant therefore faced a very high hurdle.
2. Assessment of evidence. The trial judge was entitled to consider the whole evidential picture, including the Service B record, expert evidence that drain clearance formed part of that service, the visual health check, and evidence that the earlier moisture problem had been reported to the dealer. Taken together, those matters provided a sufficient evidential foundation for inferring that the dealer had cleared the drainage channel. The judge’s inference was rationally supportable.
3. Failure to mention evidence. The judge’s treatment of the expert’s internet search did not establish that the evidence had been overlooked. The judgment explained why the late emergence of the evidence reduced its weight and why the absence of published incidents was not decisive, given the possible confidentiality of manufacturer complaints. The weight given to evidence was pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge.
4. Expert evidence. The court observed that similar caution applies where an appellate court is asked to reconsider an evaluation based on expert evidence, because such an evaluation may be interwoven with wider factual findings. This was considered hypothetically because the appellant did not advance a separate challenge on that basis.
5. Statutory issue and scope. The appellant did not pursue the argument that section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 had been misapplied. On the facts found, the trial judge was fully justified in concluding that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality. The decision did not determine generally that the model or drainage design was defective; future cases could properly produce different conclusions on different evidence.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2022] EWCA Civ 1339, the appeal was dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Manchester — HHJ Pearce delivered judgment on 17 March 2022 and made an order on 18 March 2022 in case CC-2021-MAN-000029. The claimant was held to have validly rejected the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with repayment and damages ordered.