911 SBD Ltd v Bury Van Hire Ltd & Anor

An appellate court should interfere with factual findings only where the decision was plainly wrong, rationally unsupportable, infected by an identifiable error, or outside the bounds of reasonable disagreement. This restraint applies to primary facts, evaluations and inferences. A trial judge need not address every piece of evidence or argument, provided the judgment identifies the issues critical to the decision and explains their resolution. Where the claimant bears the burden of proving an agreement, weaknesses in the defendant’s evidence do not relieve the claimant of that burden. A party’s subjective understanding is insufficient to establish an agreement unless it was communicated to the alleged counterparty.

The claimant appealed against an order of His Honour Judge Khan dated 21 June 2023 dismissing its claim after trial. It alleged that two payments totalling £50,000 were a deposit paid to Bury Van Hire Ltd for the purchase of a Ferrari F12, and claimed repayment and damages for deceit. The defendants’ case was that the payments were made on behalf of Marcus Walker as a deposit under a lease-purchase agreement with Bury Vehicle Leasing Ltd.

The appeal challenged the trial judge’s factual findings, assessment of witness credibility, treatment of documents and adequacy of reasons. The central issues were whether the judge was entitled to prefer the defendants’ evidence and whether any alleged omissions or inconsistencies justified appellate intervention.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order dismissing the claim was upheld.
2. The applicable threshold for an appeal against factual findings was high. The appellate court could not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. Intervention required a plainly wrong or rationally unsupportable decision, an identifiable error such as a material error of law or failure to consider material evidence, or a conclusion outside the range of reasonable disagreement. This applied to primary facts, evaluations and inferences.
3. The trial judge was entitled to assess the witnesses’ reliability in the context of the whole evidence. The judge was not required to discuss every item of evidence or argument, provided the critical issues were identified and the reasoning enabled the appellate court to understand the decision. The judge’s preference for Ms Cole’s evidence and conclusion that Mr Bose was particularly unimpressive were rationally available findings.
4. The claimant bore the burden of proving the alleged agreement and had failed to discharge it. The defendants’ evidential weaknesses did not reverse that burden. Even if all testimony had been unsatisfactory, the claim would still fail because the claimant had not established its case.
5. The 1 March lease, payment receipts and related documents supported the conclusion that the deposit was allocated to Mr Walker’s agreement with Bury Vehicle Leasing Ltd. Mr Bose’s purchase of a customised number plate could show only his subjective understanding; it did not establish that this understanding had been communicated to Bury Van Hire Ltd or formed part of any agreement with it.
6. The judge had correctly considered the missing authorisation letter and minor inconsistencies. Accepting Ms Cole’s explanation for the missing document was within the range of reasonable judgment. Mr Cole’s understanding of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 328, was incorrect, but that did not make the defendants’ account inherently improbable in the circumstances.
7. The alleged deficiencies in the reasons, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not justify appellate intervention.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Khan dated 21 June 2023 dismissing the claimant’s claim. Permission to appeal was granted by Mr Justice Ritchie on 19 October 2023. The appeal was dismissed and the order below upheld.