|The caption reads "Put some music in |
your food". The IPKat fervently
hopes this music is licensed ...
‘in Australia buffet lunches are like a competitive sport’.
|The secret of credibility|
is: look serious and keep
your mouth shut ...
(1) should Ms Rutter's report be included in the evidence on the appeal?
(2) should the court allow the appeal in respect of either or both
(a) breach of contract,
(b) breach of confidence?
(2) Appeal against the trial judge's decision
Counsel for the claimants submitted that the methodology of Judge Pelling QC led him into error because he failed to have regard to all the evidence and did not appreciate the strength of the evidence required to establish a fraudulent claim. As counsel suggested, even liars tell the truth sometimes [but dare we believe this uncorroborated statement, ponders Merpel] but -- once the judge had concluded that their evidence was unreliable -- the entirety of that witness’s evidence was rejected, including those parts which were mutually corroborative.
In relation to the breach of confidence action, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the credibility of Mr Bailey was not relevant to the judge's findings. Further, no ground of appeal focused on any part of his decision on that claim. At least in that respect, therefore, the appeal had to be dismissed.
In relation to the breach of contract claim, the submissions for the claimants ignored the scheme of the judgment as a whole and the judge’s consideration of subsequent conduct. Judge Pelling QC started by considering the credibility of the parties and all the other witnesses who gave evidence before him. He did not, contrary to the suggestion of counsel for the claimants, simply reject all the evidence of Mr Bailey and Mr Williams: he only jettisoned evidence that was not admitted by the other side, corroborated or against interest. With regard to the other witnesses, he did not simply reject the evidence of any of them; he merely recorded that caution or great caution would be required before accepting or relying on it. In the course of this process the judge considered the evidence of all the witnesses who had given evidence before him. He balanced their evidence and the events to which they referred. He concluded that the claimants had failed to prove their case.
This was, said Kitchin LJ, an attempt to reargue the case on the facts. The Court of Appeal could see no ground on which to interfere with the conclusions of Judge Pelling QC or the orders he made in relation to either breach of contract or misuse of confidential information. The appeal was thus unanimously dismissed.