- Cited — Kanwarjit Singh Juj v John Lewis Partnership Plc 2023-12-21
“…ot interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that the judge was plainly wrong: McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477.…”
- Cited — Vale SA v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor 2023-11-24
“…[2013] 1 WLR 2477…”
- Cited — T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal) 2023-05-05
“… B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Supreme Court. The reasons for this approach are many.…”
- Cited — Gabriele Volpi & Anor. v Matteo Volpi 2022-04-05
“…If authority for all these propositions is needed, it may be found in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360; McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477; Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, [2014] FSR 29; Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600; Elliston v Glencore Ser…”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…tance, particularly where the judge has heard oral evidence, are well established. Reference may, for example, be made to McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477, especially at [1] – [4] per Lord Reed and Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, [2014] FSR 29 at [114] – [116] per Lewison LJ. For present purposes,…”
- Cited — S (Children) 2020-04-09
“…WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Supreme Court. The reasons for this approach are many. They include…”
- Cited — Prescott v Potamianos & Anor 2019-06-06
“… B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Supreme Court. The reasons for this approach are many. They include…”
- Explained — Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors 2019-05-14
“…hould not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong: McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477. What does “plainly wrong” mean? The Supreme Court explained in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [62]:…”
- Explained — Lachaux v Lachaux 2019-05-01
“…h a trial judge’s findings are very limited, as Mr Harrison rightly acknowledged. They have been explained in a number of cases including McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] 1 WLR 2477, Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 and Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5. There is no basis on which this court would be enti…”
- Cited — Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor (Rev 2) 2019-04-11
“…Lord Reed JSC in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 at para 33): "appeals are telescopic in nature, focusing narrowly on particular issues as opposed to viewing the case as a whole." In elaborating this point, t…”
- Cited — Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor (Rev 2) 2019-04-11
“…See Housen v Nikolaisen 2002 SCC 33; [2002] 2 SCR 235, para 14 (quoted in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 at para 4). Furthermore, not every detail of the relevant evidence need or can be captured in the reasons given by the judge. As Lord Hoffmann said in Piglowsk…”
- Cited — Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor (Rev 2) 2019-04-11
“…[2013] 1 WLR 2477…”
- Cited — Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust 2019-04-08
“…This court has reiterated in a number of recent cases, including McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; 2014 SC (UKSC) 12; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; 2014 SLT 775; [2014] 1 WLR 2600, that appellate courts should exercise restraint in reversing findings…”
- Cited — First City Monument Bank Plc v Zumax Nigeria Ltd 2019-03-01
“…Mr Moraes took us, too, to McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477. In that case, the Supreme Court stressed how rarely an appellate Court should interfere with a trial judge’s factual findings. I cannot see, however, that McG…”
- Cited — W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV 2018-11-28
“…t not interfere unless satisfied that it is plainly wrong or is one that no reasonable judge could have reached: see e.g. McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; [2014] 1 WLR 2600.…”
- Cited — Moore v Moore & Anor 2018-11-27
“…act by appellate courts, as laid down in a series of recent decisions of the Supreme Court and this court, beginning with McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477, and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600. The general rule is that an appellate court can interfere only where it is sat…”
- Cited — Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd 2018-10-18
“… B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 [2013] 1 WLR 2477. These are all decisions either of the House of Lords or of the Supreme Court. The reasons for this approach are many. They include…”
- Cited — Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd 2018-10-18
“…light of the recent Supreme Court decisions of Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; [2014] 1 WLR 2600 and McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 the latter of which cited with approval Hamilton v Allied Domecq Plc [2006] SC 221, para 85. In the latter case it was said:-…”
- Cited — Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2018-07-05
“… that the appeals amounted to an attempt to undermine the trial judge’s findings of primary fact, contrary to the principles re-stated in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] 1 WLR 2477 (to which one might add Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41). I would emphasise at the outset that this …”
- Cited — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“… of the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v Nikolaisen 2002 SCC 33; [2002] 2 SCR 235, para 14 (quoted by Lord Reed JSC in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 at para 33): “appeals are telescopic in nature, focusing narrowly on particular issues as opposed to viewing the case as a whole.” In elaborating this point, t…”
- Cited — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…See Housen v Nikolaisen 2002 SCC 33; [2002] 2 SCR 235, para 14 (quoted in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 at para 4). Furthermore, not every detail of the relevant evidence need or can be captured in the reasons given by the judge. As Lord Hoffmann said in Piglowsk…”
- Explained — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…y interfere with a finding of fact made by the trial judge if satisfied that the conclusion is “plainly wrong”: see e.g. McGraddie v McGraddie, [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477; Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; [2014] 1 WLR 2600. As Lord Reed explained in the latter case, what this amounts to is that it must either…”
- Cited — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…has not been provided to us, before he reached his conclusions. In accordance with the principles set out by Lord Reed in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; [2014] 1 WLR 2600, it cannot be said that the judge’s conclusions on the facts were plainly wrong, and…”