Sukhwinder Singh v Makhan Singh Bains & Anor

On an appeal against findings of fact, the Court of Appeal intervenes only where the decision is plainly wrong, rationally insupportable, or affected by an identifiable error such as a demonstrable failure to consider relevant evidence.

A judgment need not mention every piece of evidence or argument. It must nevertheless show that the material issues and evidence were considered and explain the rejection of apparently compelling contrary evidence. Confusing evidence may justify caution, but not resort to the burden of proof where the evidence permits a decision on the balance of probabilities. The appeal was dismissed because the finding that no oral agreement existed was rationally available.

The appellant sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement under which he and the first respondent would each hold 50% of the shares in GB Retail Limited. After a nine-day trial, the High Court found that no such agreement existed, rejected the appellant’s evidence as unreliable, and preferred the respondent’s evidence. The decision was reported at [2025] EWHC 141 (Ch).

The appellant challenged the judge’s assessment of the evidence on three grounds: failure to consider the totality of the evidence, failure to consider compelling evidence supporting the claim, and an assessment of the respondent’s credibility said to be against the weight of the evidence. The central issue was whether the judge had made a material evaluative error or demonstrably overlooked relevant evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Miles gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Jeremy Baker and Peter Jackson agreeing. The High Court’s conclusion that there was no oral agreement for an equal shareholding was rationally available on the evidence.
2. On a pure appeal against findings of fact, including credibility findings, the appellate court must not interfere unless the decision is plainly wrong, meaning that no reasonable judge could have reached it, or unless an identifiable error is established. The principles in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, [2022] 4 WLR 48 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 applied. The trial judge’s advantage in hearing live evidence is important, and transcripts are no substitute for that experience.
3. A judge must give sufficient reasons to show the issues considered, the material evidence relied on, and the basis of the conclusions. The judge need not address every argument or evidential detail. However, an unexplained failure to deal with apparently compelling evidence contrary to the proposed conclusion may justify appellate intervention. The guidance in ACLBDD Holdings Ltd v Staechelin [2019] EWCA Civ 817, [2019] 3 All ER 429 and Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413, [2019] 4 WLR 112 was applied.
4. The trial judge was wrong to invoke the last-resort principles concerning the burden of proof discussed in Stephens v Cannon [2005] EWCA Civ 222, [2005] CP Rep 31 and Verlander v Devon Waste Management [2007] EWCA Civ 835. This was not a case in which the court could not reasonably choose between competing accounts. Nevertheless, the judge alternatively decided the case on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities.
5. A holistic evaluation is required: witness testimony, documents, uncontested events, inherent probabilities and the actors’ motives should be tested against one another. A chronological structure may have been preferable to a witness-by-witness approach, but the judgment read as a whole showed that the evidence had been considered. The four matters said to have been overlooked—the £39,000 payment, the joint purchase of No. 2292, the purpose of GBRL, and the 67:33 shareholdings in related businesses—were not apparently compelling omissions. The grounds of appeal therefore failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 408, the appeal was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Business List (Ch): In [2025] EWHC 141 (Ch), following a nine-day trial, the court found that the alleged oral agreement for equal shareholdings did not exist.