Preece v Edwards [2012] EWCA Civ 902 (12 July 2012)

Preece v Edwards [2012] EWCA Civ 902 (12 July 2012)

The judge below failed to adequately address the implications of uncontradicted expert evidence, did not put alleged inconsistencies and attempts to provide false documents to the claimant for explanation, and relied on thin reasoning for a serious finding of forgery. The dismissal of the claim could not stand and required a retrial.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 902
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Stephen James Preece; Defendant/respondent: Dafydd Wyn Edwards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chester County Court, Technology and Construction Court List
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order dismissing claim set aside; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Expert Evidence, Forgery, Appeal Procedure
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Expert Evidence Forgery Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen James Preece

Claimant/appellant

Dafydd Wyn Edwards

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chester County Court, Technology and Construction Court List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents relied upon by the claimant were genuine or forged
  2. 2 Whether the judge below erred in his assessment of expert evidence and factual inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether adverse inferences were properly drawn against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below failed to adequately address the implications of uncontradicted expert evidence, did not put alleged inconsistencies and attempts to provide false documents to the claimant for explanation, and relied on thin reasoning for a serious finding of forgery. The dismissal of the claim could not stand and required a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order dismissing claim set aside; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Fresh trial of liability only ordered at Birmingham County Court
  • Case removed from Technology and Construction Court list