Julie Amanda Mate v Shirley Clare Mate & Ors

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed ground identifies no arguable error of law, no factual finding outside the range properly open to the judge, and no realistic prospect of success. A challenge to findings about a witness’s state of mind will not justify permission where the findings were relevantly made on the trial evidence and the proposed consequences in later litigation remain unspecified. Appeals are concerned with the order or outcome, although the significance of particular findings may depend on the circumstances.

The second and third defendants sought permission to appeal from the judge’s earlier decision. They challenged the valuation of the claimant’s services for an unjust enrichment award and findings concerning the first defendant’s understanding of a declaration of trust.

The judge considered whether either proposed ground disclosed an arguable error or had a realistic prospect of success. The application also raised the proposed relevance of findings concerning the declaration of trust to possible subsequent litigation.

1. Permission refused. The defendants had not identified any error of law, subordinate factual finding that was unavailable on the evidence, or improper evaluation of expert evidence in the assessment of the claimant’s services. The judge’s conclusion that the services were appropriately valued by reference to the role of a land promoter followed detailed consideration of the facts and expert evidence. The activity-log schedule relied upon by the defendants had been considered when assessing the reliability of the activity log.
2. The challenge to findings concerning the first defendant’s understanding of the declaration of trust also had no realistic prospect of success. The declaration’s validity was not in issue in the proceedings, but the relevant witnesses had been cross-examined about it. The findings were proper findings on the written and oral evidence available at trial.
3. The judge noted the stated principle that appeals are against orders, rather than reasoned judgments or findings, but was not referred to the underlying authorities. The defendants had not explained the potential consequences of the challenged findings for subsequent litigation, so their present impact could not be assessed.
4. The defendants remained entitled to renew the application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal by 4 pm on 11 April 2023.

The judgment concerns an application for permission to appeal from the judge’s earlier High Court decision. The citation of that decision is not stated in the judgment.

• High Court (Commercial Court): permission to appeal refused on both grounds, with liberty to renew the application to the Court of Appeal.