Alison Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Limited

The Court of Appeal reaffirms that an appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's findings of primary fact or inferences unless the decision is one that no reasonable judge could have reached; where a trial judge's fact-finding is rationally supportable on the evidence, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal. In consumer-rights claims under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a product that is capable of catastrophic ingress of water due to an inherent design-related vulnerability may be treated as not of satisfactory quality.

The respondent purchased a high-value convertible which, in November 2019, suffered catastrophic water ingress into the passenger footwell causing extensive electrical damage. The High Court (HHJ Pearce) held the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and ordered refund and damages. The appellant appealed, challenging factual findings (principally whether a May 2019 service cleared a drainage channel). The Court of Appeal considered admissible evidence, expert opinion and appraisal of inferences and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings and remedy.

(1) Appeal dismissed: the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's findings of fact and the resulting application of section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (see paras [1]-[2], [135]-[136], [168]-[176]).

(2) Standard of appellate review of findings of fact: the court restated the established principle that appellate intervention is only justified where the trial judge's conclusions are plainly wrong or such that no reasonable judge could have reached them. The Court relied on authorities emphasising caution in overturning primary findings, evaluation of experts and inferences (see paras [16]-[19]).

(3) Evaluation of the service inference: the trial judge's inference that the May 2019 service would, in the ordinary course, include inspection/clearance of the drainage channel was rationally supportable. The inference was founded on a combination of documentary evidence (record of a 'Service B' and a Visual Health Check), expert evidence that the service would include drain clearance, and contemporaneous communication to the servicing dealer about moisture problems (see paras [27]-[31], [107], [110], [124]-[130]).

(4) Application of s.9 CRA 2015: the Court accepted that a vehicle capable of catastrophic internal flooding due to a drainage channel blockage fell short of the standard of satisfactory quality, being an evaluative judgment taking account of description, price and other circumstances (see paras [135]-[136], [142]-[143]).

(5) Remedy and valuation: the trial judge's choice of final right to reject and the valuation methodology (salvage valuation) was upheld; the order for refund less deduction for use was appropriate on the judge's findings (see paras [159], [166], [168]-[176]).

(6) Wider implications: the court warned against treating this decision as a general condemnation of the car model or drainage design; the decision is fact-specific and other judges might reach different conclusions on similar evidence (see para [32]).

Orders: Appeal dismissed; earlier High Court declaration and orders (refund less deduction and damages) upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal dismissed; judgment delivered 19 October 2022, upholding the High Court's orders under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• High Court (Business and Property Courts, Manchester) — HHJ Pearce made declarations and ordered refund less a deduction and damages (trial judgment of 18 March 2022) (case CC-2021-MAN-000029).