Julian Watson (Claimant/Appellant) v Tariq Mahmood Sadiq and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice McCombe,Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Jackson |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 822 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2012/1198 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 July 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 822
Lady Justice Arden
Lord Justice Jackson
and
Lord Justice Mccombe
Case No: B2/2012/1198
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LUTON COUNTY COURT
Mr Recorder Bueno QC
0WD00322
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr John McLinden QC and Malcolm Birdling (instructed by Austin Ray) for the Appellant.
Mr Nicholas Isaac for the Respondents
(A) Introduction
This is an appeal brought by Mr Julian Watson ("Mr Watson") from an order made on 29 March 2012 by Mr Recorder Bueno QC, sitting in the Luton County Court. The appeal is brought with the limited permission of Lord Justice Lloyd granted on 11 December 2012. The Respondents are Mr Tariq Sadiq and Mr Khalid Sadiq ("the Respondents"). The appeal is an unusual one in so far as it is brought against an order made, on its face, in part by consent. It is against the apparently consensual part of the order that the appeal is brought; there is no further appeal against the remaining, non-consensual parts of the order, although for my part I consider that if the consent to the earlier part of the order were somehow flawed, it is hard to see how the judge's order could survive at all.
The material parts of the order read as follows:
"Upon hearing the Claimant and Defendant's [sic] in person and Counsel for the Defendants
Upon trial of this action on 26 th, 27 th, 28 th and 29 th March 2012.
And Upon the parties having agreed the terms set out in the attached schedule.
IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT
1. All further proceedings in this claim be stayed except for the purpose of carrying such terms into effect.
2. Liberty to apply as carrying such terms into effect.
3. Liberty to the Claimant to apply to determine any issue about his possessions at 67 Redwood Drive, Hemel Hempstead, Herts. HP3 9ER
4. The restrictions dated 30 th July 2009 in the proprietorship Register of Title Number HD147984 applied for by the Claimant for 25 Goldcroft, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP3 8ET be removed.
5. The restriction dated 5 th August 2009 in the Proprietorship Register of Title Number HD283086 applied for by the Claimant for 67 Redwood Drive, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP3 9ER be removed.
AND THE COURT HAVING HEARD ARGUMENT FROM THE PARTIES FURTHER ORDERED THAT:-
6. The Defendants do pay the Claimant interest assessed in the sum of £6,889.60 by 26 th April 2012.
7. The Defendants do pay 60% of the Claimant's costs, to be subject to a detailed assessment unless agreed."
The schedule referred to read as follows:
"In full and final settlement of all claims that the parties have against each other whether brought in claim no 0WD000322 in the Watford County Court and transferred to the Luton County Court ("the Action") or at all.
1. The Claimant agrees that all his equitable interest in 67 Redwood Drive, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP3 9ER ("Redwood") has been assigned to the First Defendant, the registered proprietor of Title Number HD283086 as from 30 th September 2009.
2. The Claimant agrees that all his equitable interest in 25 Goldcroft, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP3 8ET ("Goldcroft") has been assigned to the Second Defendant, the registered proprietor of Title Number HD147984 as from 30 th September 2009.
3. The Claimant and the Second Defendant have settled the purchase account as between themselves for the purchase of Goldcroft attached hereto and marked "A".
4. The Claimant and the First Defendant have settled the rent accounts to 30 th September 2009 for Redwood attached hereto and marked as "B".
5. The Claimant and the Second Defendant have settled the rent accounts to 30 th September 2009 for Goldcroft attached hereto and marked as "C".
6. The First Defendant will arrange to deliver to the Claimant at an agreed date and time all of the Claimant's possessions set out in the attached schedule marked "D" that remain at Redwood to the Claimant's son outside Redwood.
7. The First Defendant will pay the Claimant the sum of £67,175.50 as to £10,000 by 5 th April 2012 and the balance by 26 th April 2012.
8. The parties agree that they will keep these terms of settlement confidential and will not disclose the same to any third party without the consent of the other parties unless ordered so to do by any judicial authority or under compulsion of the law."
The schedule is signed by Mr Watson and by counsel then appearing for the Respondents.
As the order recites, it was made at the end of four days in March 2012 which had been set aside for the trial of an action brought by Mr Watson against the Respondents. It will be necessary to say more about what happened in the course of those four days later in this judgment. However, little needs to be said about the underlying dispute. On the dates in question, Mr Watson appeared in person and the Respondents were represented by counsel, (Mr Gun-Cunnighame) not counsel who has appeared for him before this court on the appeal.
The dispute between the parties arose in respect of two properties known as 25 Goldcroft and 67 Redwood Drive, both in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. The Claim Form as originally filed by Mr Watson made a claim in debt for sums totalling £161,148, plus court fees and costs. By a "statement of issues", filed by Mr Watson in preparation for trial, the claim had been whittled down to a total of £136,519, plus interest and costs. That document stated that the alternative total sum, which the Respondents were said to have accepted as owing, was £74,110; it also identified set-offs/counterclaims made by the Respondents (not admitted by Mr Watson), reducing the sums, said to be admittedly owed, to £52,760. Underlying the claims by Mr Watson, and reflected by the contents of the "statement of issues" document, were claims by him to proprietary interests in the two properties at Hemel Hempstead, over the titles to which he had registered the restrictions at HM Land Registry which are mentioned in the order. Other claims were for a share of rent and profits and to recover possessions of Mr Watson, said still to be at the properties.
None of the remaining pleadings or other documents in the action have been put before us since it is accepted that the underlying issues in the action itself are of no materiality to the appeal. The appeal is brought upon the basis that Mr Watson's consent to the order was, he argues, "vitiated by duress and/or there was no true consent on his part" and that he "did not receive a fair trial at common law or within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Human Rights Convention and/or the trial was irregular" (Grounds 7 and 9 of the grounds of appeal, reflecting the limited permission to appeal granted by Lord Justice Lloyd).
While the original grounds and skeleton arguments made allegations of duress directly against the Respondents, the thrust of the appeal, as argued before us, is directed to the contention that Mr Watson was driven into agreeing the consent order by improper interventions and pressures to settle the case exerted upon him by the Recorder. It is submitted that such interventions and pressures gave rise to an unfair trial process and a violation of Article Alternatively, the order was entered into, so it is argued,
"….without Mr Watson's true consent by reason of duress or undue influence, specifically by the improper pressure placed on the Appellant to settle by the learned Recorder. The fact that the duress or undue influence was at the hands of a third party (the learned Recorder) is immaterial here, as it was clearly within the knowledge of the Respondents, who were present throughout the hearing both personally and by counsel" (Skeleton Argument dated 31.5.13 of counsel for Mr Watson, paragraph 52)".
It is, therefore, the course of the proceedings at court on the four days between 26 and 29 March 2012, and specifically the conduct of the trial judge, that are in issue on the appeal. It is necessary now, therefore, to say a little more about what happened on those days.
(B) The course of the proceedings
During the course of a hearing before me on 21 May 2013 I directed that the parties should endeavour to agree a non-contentious summary of the course of proceedings at court on the four days in question. That has now been helpfully provided. In addition, we have before us complete transcripts of what was said in court by and before the learned Recorder in court on those days. From those materials it has been possible for us to obtain a good understanding of the matters of which Mr Watson, through Counsel, now complains. It was agreed at that hearing, and again upon the hearing of the appeal, that the appeal could be decided upon the written materials alone, without further evidence, save for a small bundle of post trial correspondence. It is only necessary for the purposes of my judgment to summarise the salient features of the proceedings below as relied upon by the parties.
When the court sat on the morning of the first day, with Mr Watson being unrepresented, it is clear that (understandably) the Recorder was not expecting the type of opening of the case of which he would have had the benefit if Mr Watson, as claimant, had been represented by counsel or by a solicitor. The Recorder began by indicating that he had a formidable collection of files before him and that he had a skeleton argument from the defendants, but had been unable to identify a skeleton argument from Mr Watson. It appears from a short comment by the Recorder...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mionis v Democratic Press SA and Others
...or mistake: see Community Care North East v Durham County Council [2010] EWHC 959 (QB) [2012] 1 WLR 338; Watson v Sadiq [2013] EWCA Civ. 822 at 49 to 50 and E. V. Phillips & Sons v Clarke [1970] Ch. 222 at 325. 48 For their part, the respondents do not challenge the substance of grounds (i)......
-
Dr Erica Smith v Dr Christopher Backhouse
...an injunction; iii) generally, the court cannot re-write the contractual terms of a settlement agreed by the parties: Watson v Sadiq [2013] EWCA Civ 822 and Zenith Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Keates [2020] EWHC 774 (QB), [2020] 1 WLR 2982. In general, where the parties are represented,......
-
Jeffrey Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd
...decisions of Ramsey J in Community Care North East v Durham County Council [2012] 1 WLR 338 and the Court of Appeal in Watson v Sadiq [2013] EWCA Civ 822. As the Costs Judge noted, those cases were authority for the general proposition that, whilst the Tomlin order itself is enforceable, th......
-
Andreas Read v Eastern Counties Leather Group Ltd
...and the need to ensure that the Court is not misled. 69 They relied upon the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Watson v Sadiq [2013] EWCA Civ 822, [49]–[51] and of Ramsey J in Community Care North East v Durham County Council [2012] 1 WLR 338, [28], for the proposition that the contract......
-
Litigation
...the terms of a consent order or set it aside: Community Care North East v Durham County Council [2010] EWHC 959 (QB); Watson v Sadiq [2013] EWCA Civ 822; Sentosa Building Construction Pte Ltd v DJ Builders & Contractors Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 18; A-Tech Australia Pty Ltd v Top Paciic Construc......