Field v Tibbs [2000] EWCA Civ 195 (20 June 2000)

Field v Tibbs [2000] EWCA Civ 195 (20 June 2000)

The trial judge failed to make a proper finding on whether the appropriation of payments to Doreen's debt was made with Mr. Tibbs' agreement and did not adequately address the credibility of the main witnesses or the central factual issue. The documentary evidence relied upon did not establish the necessary agreement. The judgment below cannot stand and a retrial is necessary.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 195
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Field; Defendant/appellant: Ronald Tibbs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order below set aside; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Appropriation of Payments, Summary Judgment, Appeal Out of Time, Credibility of Witnesses
Contract Law Civil Procedure Loan Agreements Appropriation of Payments Summary Judgment Appeal Out of Time Credibility of Witnesses

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Field

Claimant

Ronald Tibbs

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Out of Time and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appropriation of payments to a third party's debt was made with the defendant's agreement
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to address the credibility of the main witnesses and the central factual issue

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to make a proper finding on whether the appropriation of payments to Doreen's debt was made with Mr. Tibbs' agreement and did not adequately address the credibility of the main witnesses or the central factual issue. The documentary evidence relied upon did not establish the necessary agreement. The judgment below cannot stand and a retrial is necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order below set aside; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Permission to appeal out of time granted
  • Appeal allowed