PARRINGTON V MARRIOTT UNREPORTED COURT OF APPEAL 19TH FEBRUARY 1999
FACTS:-The Claimant was raped by the Defendant on two occasions and subjected to sexual harassment over a period of about 18 months. She brought a claim against him and was awarded at trial £73,778.06. The Defendant appealed
There had been no criminal prosecution. The Defendant strenuously denied the allegations against him.
JUDGEMENT:-Lord Justice Mummery considered the standard of proof in such a case. The trial judge had said that he had to find the allegations proven to a high degree, commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations. That was consistent with the approach taken in Miles v Cain Court of Appeal Transcript 14 December 1989 and reflected what was said in Re: H and R [1996] 1 FLR 80.
The Defendant had appealed the trial judge’s findings of fact on the grounds that the Claimant’s account had been inconsistent. Mummery LJ said that according to Smith New Court Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] AC 254 where there had been no misdirection on an issue of fact by the trial judge, the presumption was that his conclusion on an issue of fact was correct. Furthermore it was stated in Gross v Lewis Hillman [1970] Ch 445 that a Court of Appeal is not entitled to disturb findings of fact made by the trial judge on the truthfulness of a witness, unless it is completely satisfied that the judge was wrong. It was not enough that the Court of Appeal had doubts, even grave doubts as to the correctness of the judge’s finding. It had to be convinced that he was wrong.
The trial judge should not compartmentalise the case. An initial and provisional conclusion that a witness was not credible on a particular point might be falsified when considered against the possibilities, probabilities and certainties emerging from the whole body of evidence before the court. (Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Wong Muk Ping [1987] AC 501).
In this case the judge had not fallen into error.
In relation to damages, loss of income had been assessed at £11,154.96 with interest thereon, and general damages had been assessed at £25,000 with £30,000 for aggravated damages. The trial judge had referred to Griffiths v Williams Unreported 21st November 1995. The judge had said that he would be doing less than his duty, if he did not award a large element of aggravated damages in the circumstances of this case. He felt that this case was worse than Griffiths in terms of the conduct and the indignity to which the Claimant was subjected.
Mantell LJ and Woolf MR agreed.
FACTS:-The Claimant was raped by the Defendant on two occasions and subjected to sexual harassment over a period of about 18 months. She brought a claim against him and was awarded at trial £73,778.06. The Defendant appealed
There had been no criminal prosecution. The Defendant strenuously denied the allegations against him.
JUDGEMENT:-Lord Justice Mummery considered the standard of proof in such a case. The trial judge had said that he had to find the allegations proven to a high degree, commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations. That was consistent with the approach taken in Miles v Cain Court of Appeal Transcript 14 December 1989 and reflected what was said in Re: H and R [1996] 1 FLR 80.
The Defendant had appealed the trial judge’s findings of fact on the grounds that the Claimant’s account had been inconsistent. Mummery LJ said that according to Smith New Court Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] AC 254 where there had been no misdirection on an issue of fact by the trial judge, the presumption was that his conclusion on an issue of fact was correct. Furthermore it was stated in Gross v Lewis Hillman [1970] Ch 445 that a Court of Appeal is not entitled to disturb findings of fact made by the trial judge on the truthfulness of a witness, unless it is completely satisfied that the judge was wrong. It was not enough that the Court of Appeal had doubts, even grave doubts as to the correctness of the judge’s finding. It had to be convinced that he was wrong.
The trial judge should not compartmentalise the case. An initial and provisional conclusion that a witness was not credible on a particular point might be falsified when considered against the possibilities, probabilities and certainties emerging from the whole body of evidence before the court. (Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Wong Muk Ping [1987] AC 501).
In this case the judge had not fallen into error.
In relation to damages, loss of income had been assessed at £11,154.96 with interest thereon, and general damages had been assessed at £25,000 with £30,000 for aggravated damages. The trial judge had referred to Griffiths v Williams Unreported 21st November 1995. The judge had said that he would be doing less than his duty, if he did not award a large element of aggravated damages in the circumstances of this case. He felt that this case was worse than Griffiths in terms of the conduct and the indignity to which the Claimant was subjected.
Mantell LJ and Woolf MR agreed.