Longer Reads
2 minute read
Published 27 November 2019
Background
In 2018, Collyer Bristow reported on a Commercial Court decision in which Mr Justice Knowles dismissed allegations of fraud against forex trading firm Ikon Finance (“Ikon”). Simetra Global Assets Limited and Richcroft Investments Limited (the “Claimants”) accused Ikon of assisting George Daskaleas to misappropriate large sums of subscription funds from investors, which were supposed to be actively traded on online forex platforms. The trial lasted 13 days. However, in a brief judgment, Mr Justice Knowles held that the Claimants’ allegations had failed “in every material respect”.
Further details about the first instance decision can be found here.
The Claimants appealed the decision, arguing for a retrial with a different Judge on the basis that Mr Justice Knowles had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It was held that the failure to give reasons for a conclusion essential to a judge’s decision is a good ground of appeal. Lord Justice Males, who delivered the lead judgment, explained that whilst it is not strictly necessary for a Judge to deal expressly with every single point, she or he “must say enough to show that care has been taken and that the evidence as a whole has been properly considered.” A judge can achieve this by: (1) identifying the issues which need to be decided; (2) marshalling the evidence which bears on those issues; and (3) giving reasons why the principally relevant evidence is either to be accepted or rejected. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Knowles failed to meet those criteria because:
The Court of Appeal decided that, although putting the Defendants through the stress and expense of a retrial was regrettable, it would be more unfair to let the “serious and inadequately reasoned findings” of the Judge stand.
Comment
This decision shows that the Court of Appeal is intent on maintaining rigorously high standards expected of High Court Judges with respect to their judgments. Litigants should bear in mind that if a decision goes against them, any failure by the Judge to give adequate reasons for their conclusions may give rise to a valid ground of appeal.
Longer Reads
Published 27 November 2019
Background
In 2018, Collyer Bristow reported on a Commercial Court decision in which Mr Justice Knowles dismissed allegations of fraud against forex trading firm Ikon Finance (“Ikon”). Simetra Global Assets Limited and Richcroft Investments Limited (the “Claimants”) accused Ikon of assisting George Daskaleas to misappropriate large sums of subscription funds from investors, which were supposed to be actively traded on online forex platforms. The trial lasted 13 days. However, in a brief judgment, Mr Justice Knowles held that the Claimants’ allegations had failed “in every material respect”.
Further details about the first instance decision can be found here.
The Claimants appealed the decision, arguing for a retrial with a different Judge on the basis that Mr Justice Knowles had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision.
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It was held that the failure to give reasons for a conclusion essential to a judge’s decision is a good ground of appeal. Lord Justice Males, who delivered the lead judgment, explained that whilst it is not strictly necessary for a Judge to deal expressly with every single point, she or he “must say enough to show that care has been taken and that the evidence as a whole has been properly considered.” A judge can achieve this by: (1) identifying the issues which need to be decided; (2) marshalling the evidence which bears on those issues; and (3) giving reasons why the principally relevant evidence is either to be accepted or rejected. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Knowles failed to meet those criteria because:
The Court of Appeal decided that, although putting the Defendants through the stress and expense of a retrial was regrettable, it would be more unfair to let the “serious and inadequately reasoned findings” of the Judge stand.
Comment
This decision shows that the Court of Appeal is intent on maintaining rigorously high standards expected of High Court Judges with respect to their judgments. Litigants should bear in mind that if a decision goes against them, any failure by the Judge to give adequate reasons for their conclusions may give rise to a valid ground of appeal.
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Subscribe
Please add your details and your areas of interest below
Article contributors
Partner - Head of Dispute Resolution Services
Specialising in Banking & financial disputes, Commercial disputes, Corporate recovery, restructuring & insolvency, Financial regulatory and Personal insolvency
Associate
Specialising in Commercial disputes, Banking & financial disputes, Commercial arbitration and Financial regulatory
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesPlease note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close