Preece v Edwards
The judge's conclusion that the documents were forgeries and that Mr Edwards was only employed to draw plans could not stand due to inadequate reasoning, failure to address uncontradicted expert evidence, and improper reliance on adverse inferences not put to the claimant. The order dismissing the claim was set aside and a retrial ordered.
- 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 Judgment and Order Dismissing Claim
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; order dismissing claim set aside; retrial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Forgery, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Case Management
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen James Preece
Claimant/appellant
Dafydd Wyn Edwards
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dismissing Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the documents relied upon by the claimant were genuine or forged
- 2 Whether the judge's reasoning and findings on authenticity and credibility were adequate
- 3 Whether adverse inferences against the claimant were properly drawn
Ratio Decidendi
The judge's conclusion that the documents were forgeries and that Mr Edwards was only employed to draw plans could not stand due to inadequate reasoning, failure to address uncontradicted expert evidence, and improper reliance on adverse inferences not put to the claimant. The order dismissing the claim was set aside and a retrial ordered.
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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment