- Cited — Kanwarjit Singh Juj v John Lewis Partnership Plc 2023-12-21
“…e court should not 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] UKSC 58…”
- Cited — T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal) 2023-05-05
“… 1 WLR 1325; Re 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 — Alison Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Limited 2022-10-19
“…R. 1325; Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 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 — 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; Elli…”
- Cited — Mark Byers v The Saudi National Bank 2022-01-27
“…L 23; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1325 ; Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 1911 and most recently and comprehensively McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 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 — Lowe v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-01-25
“…[2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2477…”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…ade at first instance, 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. Fo…”
- 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 — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…r exceptional circumstances to justify an appellate court interfering with a judge’s factual determinations. They pointed to 5 cases. In McGraddie v. McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58, Lord Reed said at [2] that it had been long settled that an appellate court should intervene only if it is satisfied that the judge was plainly wrong. Lord Re…”
- Cited — Prescott v Potamianos & Anor 2019-06-06
“… 1 WLR 1325; Re 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
“…ppellate court should 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 [6…”
- Cited — Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor (Rev 2) 2019-04-11
“…[2013] UKSC 58…”
- 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 elabor…”
- 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 Hoffma…”
- 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 ex…”
- 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…”
- Cited — W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV 2018-11-28
“…llate court ought 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
“…of findings of fact 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 o…”
- Cited — Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd 2018-10-18
“… 1 WLR 1325; Re 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
“…vant law in the 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 — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…ajority judgment 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 elabor…”
- 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 Hoffma…”
- Explained — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…court should only 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 …”
- Cited — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…mentation which 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…”
- Applied — Vickerage v Cunningham 2018-05-17
“…findings of fact made by a lower court, who heard the witnesses and considered all the circumstances of the case: see, for example, McGraddie v McGraddie & Anr [2013] UKSC 58. Those principles apply in particular to this sort of case, where there was a good deal of hotly-contested oral evidence which the judge had to evaluate. As Le…”