Hafizur Rahman v Mohammed Abdul Munim & Anor

An appellate court should not substitute its own view for a trial judge’s findings of fact. Intervention requires a conclusion that was plainly wrong, inadequate reasoning, failure to consider material evidence, or procedural unfairness.

The rules requiring cross-examination on material challenges and adherence to the pleaded case protect overall fairness, but operate flexibly. The decisive question is whether the alleged omission caused unfairness or material prejudice. A judge need not discuss every piece of evidence or follow unnecessary formality where the trial was fair. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

This was an appeal by one of two unsuccessful petitioners against the dismissal of an unfair prejudice petition concerning Le Chef plc. The petition alleged that shares had been improperly transferred and that the company’s director had acted in breach of the company’s articles and his duties.

The High Court, presided over by HHJ Jarman KC, found that the appellant had signed the relevant stock transfer forms and associated company documents, and dismissed the petition: [2022] EWHC 2870 (Ch). Permission was granted on four grounds challenging factual findings, the treatment of evidence, the adequacy of reasons, and the significance of an email. The central issue was whether the alleged errors justified appellate interference.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lady Justice Falk gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice King agreeing.
2. The governing approach to appeals against findings of fact was summarised in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464. An appellate court must not interfere unless the conclusion was plainly wrong, meaning that no reasonable judge could have reached it. The appellate court should generally assume that the trial judge considered the whole of the evidence. A judgment must be read fairly and in context, without narrow textual analysis.
3. Inadequate reasons can justify an appeal. The judge must identify matters critical to the decision and address apparently compelling contrary evidence where it exists. The adequacy of reasons depends on the subject matter, and an exhaustive discussion of every piece of evidence is unnecessary. The principles in Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413 were applied.
4. The general rule requiring a party to challenge material evidence in cross-examination is directed to overall fairness. It protects the opposing party, the witness and the integrity of the judicial process. As explained in Griffiths v TUI (UK) Ltd [2023] UKSC 48, the rule is not rigid. Its application depends on the circumstances, including proportionality and whether the alleged omission caused prejudice. Chen v Ng [2017] UKPC 27 illustrated the importance of considering the fairness of the trial as a whole.
5. A departure from the pleaded case is not automatically impermissible. The court should identify the case advanced, compare it with the decision reached and, where necessary, identify any prejudice. The modern approach is pragmatic and focused on justice and fairness, as illustrated by Ali v Dinc [2022] EWCA Civ 34.
6. Applying those principles, the High Court’s findings had evidential support from handwriting evidence, shareholder resolutions, the shareholders’ agreement and the commercial circumstances requiring further investment. The judge had considered the relevant emails and gave adequate reasons. Although some matters could have been explored more fully in cross-examination, the appellant had already denied the relevant facts and could not show that further questioning would probably have produced materially different evidence. The omissions therefore caused no unfairness or material prejudice. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the dismissal of the unfair prejudice petition was dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List (ChD): HHJ Jarman KC dismissed the unfair prejudice petition and the related copyright claim: [2022] EWHC 2870 (Ch).