31 March 2015Print This Post

Appeal judges condemn district judge who failed to give “any adequate reasons” for ruling

RCJ

Patten LJ: “not one sentence in which he makes any specific findings of fact”

The Court of Appeal has strongly criticised a district judge who failed to produce “any adequate reasons” for reaching his conclusions in an adverse possession case.

Ordering a retrial of the case heard by District Judge Rouine at Preston County Court, Lord Justice Patten said: “In place of an analysis of the evidence and the submissions on both sides as to its credibility or relevance, the judge has given blanket acceptance to the claimants’ evidence and a blanket rejection of that of the defendant’s witnesses.

“In the whole of his judgment on the facts there is not one sentence in which he makes any specific findings of fact or gives the reasons for doing so.

“Nor is any attempt made to deal separately with the various parcels of land in dispute even though different witnesses gave different evidence in respect of each of them.”

The court heard in Weymont and Weymont v Place [2015] EWCA Civ 289 that Mr and Mrs Weymont sought damages for trespass and an injunction regarding the use by Mr Place of land around his farmhouse in Lancashire.

Mr Place responded by arguing that either the land came within his registered title or, alternatively, that he and his father had acquired the title by adverse possession.

Lord Justice Patten said judges were not required to deal with “every point raised in argument, however peripheral, or with every part of the evidence”, but the parties were “entitled to have explained to them how the judge has determined their substantive rights and, for that purpose, the judge is required to produce a fully reasoned judgment which does so”.

Patten LJ said the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court had “repeatedly recognised” the advantages which the trial judge enjoys in hearing live evidence and assessing credibility of witnesses.

“The function of the appeal court is not to re-hear the case but to review the decision which the trial judge has made,” he said.

“For this reason, it will only interfere with his findings of fact if it becomes clear that there was no evidence to support them, that the judge misunderstood the evidence, or that he made findings which no reasonable judge could, in the circumstances, have made.”

However, Patten LJ said the “relative immunity” of the trial judge’s findings of fact depended on that judge having properly considered and understood the evidence, taken into account the criticisms of the evidence advanced by lawyers and reached a “balanced and objective” conclusion.

“An important aspect of this process is the production of a properly reasoned judgment which explains to the parties and to any wider readership why the judge has reached the decision he has made.

“This includes making a reference to the issues in the case, the legal principles or test which have to be applied and to why, in cases of conflicting factual evidence, the judge came to accept the evidence of particular witnesses in preference to that of others.”

Patten LJ allowed the appeal by Mr Place and ordered a retrial before a Chancery circuit judge. Lady Justice Hallett and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke agreed.

By Nick Hilborne

Tags: , , ,


One Response to “Appeal judges condemn district judge who failed to give “any adequate reasons” for ruling”

  1. I am currently nearing the end of a lengthy case (4 yrs) with my local council. In fact the decision was due to be handed down on the 6th january 2017, However this date was brought forward to 29th Dec 2016, due the fact that the District Judge who was to make his decision was “unavailable” on the 6th.
    As it transpired both parties turned up to hear the decision, only to be greeted by the Judge in question who apologised and said ” I have made my decision, however I forgot to bring it with me as I left it at home” He then went on to explain he had just returned from his 2 week holidays. But apparently he made his decision before he went.
    He then said would we like to hear his decision. I of course said yes he then told me that I had lost both the claimants claim and also my counterclaim. I then asked him why? and he said he would let me know when a further sitting was arranged, he also added that he couldn’t exactly remember how he had worded his decisions and that I would have to wait a further 3-4 weeks.
    In my statement I had informed the court that I had been suffering from mental health issues since the onset of the dispute almost 7 years ago. Obviously I intend to appeal his decision but doesn’t it make one start doubting the credibility of some sectors of our legal system?

  2. james bowes on December 31st, 2016 at 10:29 am

Leave a comment

We encourage you to be part of the Litigation Futures community but please note that all comments will be moderated before posting. We draw your attention to clause 5 of the Terms and Conditions of the site, which deals with user-generated content.