Mehmet Edhem v Muazzez Edhem

An appellate tribunal should interfere with a case-management decision only where it was irrational, plainly wrong or involved an error of law. The assessment must consider the circumstances known to the first-instance judge, including the parties’ conduct and the practical basis for the application.

A judge need not refer expressly to every item of evidence. The judgment must show that the evidence as a whole was considered, identify the issues, address the principal evidence, and explain the treatment of apparently compelling evidence contrary to the conclusion. Where the decision is adequately explained and a rehearing would be pointless, an appeal should be dismissed.

Muazzez Edhem alleged that her signature had been forged on a transfer of 27 Netherford Road to her son, Mehmet Edhem. The First-tier Tribunal found that the transfer was forged and directed rectification of the register under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Mehmet appealed, arguing that the FTT should have permitted a crucial witness to give evidence remotely and had failed to explain its treatment of evidence relevant to Muazzez’s credibility. The Upper Tribunal considered whether those matters disclosed an error of law.

1. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds. The FTT’s decision that the transfer was forged and that the registration was a mistake stood.
2. The refusal to revisit the requirement that Ms Mitchell attend in person was within the FTT’s discretion. There was no direct evidence that she was willing to give evidence remotely, no established contact with her, and no arrangements had been made for remote evidence. Counsel had also not challenged the objection to remote evidence during the hearing. The decision to proceed without her was therefore within the range of permissible discretionary decisions.
3. The FTT was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the absence of evidence about professional service of the witness summons. That inference was not crucial to the outcome and was not independently appealed.
4. The FTT had not failed to consider the evidence relevant to credibility. The apparent inconsistencies in Muazzez’s accounts were capable of explanation by her discovery that Mehmet was registered as owner and her later sight of the transfer itself. The evidence of Sina and the Metropolitan Police file added nothing material. The judge’s failure expressly to mention Mr Houlous’s evidence was not fatal, since the judge was not required to refer to every item and the reasons for rejecting it were apparent from the findings and credibility concerns.
5. Applying the guidance in Simetra Global Assets Limited v Ikon Finance Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1413, the FTT’s reasons identified the central issue and the principal evidential building blocks sufficiently to demonstrate that the evidence as a whole had been considered. The explanation could have been fuller, but it was legally adequate.
6. Even if the reasoning had been insufficient, remittal would have been pointless because the findings that Mehmet was lying and that Muazzez was truthful on the central issue were unchallenged and the evidential picture could be understood. A rehearing would waste the parties’ and Tribunal’s resources.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): appeal from the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed. The FTT’s finding that the transfer was forged and that the register should be rectified was upheld.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): found that the transfer of 27 Netherford Road had been forged and directed correction of the register under the Land Registration Act 2002.