- Explained — Patricia Kihembo v Disclosure and Barring Service 2023-12-21
“…t been qualified by words like ‘plainly’. Nowadays, that has to be understood in the way explained by the Supreme Court in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600:…”
- Cited — Vale SA v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor 2023-11-24
“…[2014] UKSC 41…”
- Cited — CDE v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 2023-11-14
“…As to the meaning of “plainly wrong” in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600:…”
- Cited — Decision Inc Holdings Proprietary Limited & Anor v Stephen Garbett & Anor 2023-11-03
“…Appellate Courts are, of course, slow to interfere with such findings. In Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, Lord Reed said at paragraph 67:…”
- Applied — Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly 2023-10-09
“…9] 1 WLR 1360, 1372D in which he said that appellate caution applied equally to the evaluation of facts. More recently, in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 Lord Reed said at [67]:…”
- Cited — Disclosure and Barring Service v JHB 2023-08-17
“… no reason to qualify the word ‘mistake’. The UT referred to the relevant test, which is whether a decision is ‘wrong’, and to Henderson v Foxworth Investments [2014] UKSC 41; [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at paragraph 62. It was not enough that the UT would, itself, have made different findings (paragraph 38). The UT gave examples of mistakes …”
- Cited — T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal) 2023-05-05
“…[2014] UKSC 41 (paragraph 62), and passages from judgments of this court as to the weight to be given to evidence from ABE interviews and as to the treatment of lies.…”
- Cited — Floreat Investment Management Limited v Benjamin Churchill & Ors 2023-04-25
“…adduced. This is, therefore, one of those rare cases where this court can and should reverse a finding by the trial judge (Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [67]).…”
- Cited — Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor 2023-02-24
“…For example, in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 Lord Reed said that:…”
- Cited — Quantum Care Limited & Anor. v Lalit Modi 2023-02-21
“… claimants with Ms Jessie Ingle, appellate Courts do not lightly interfere with findings of fact made by a trial judge. In Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, Lord Reed (with whom Lords Kerr, Sumption, Carnwath and Toulson agreed) said at paragraph 67:…”
- Cited — Gary James Keane v David Sargen & Ors 2023-02-15
“…y limited circumstances in which an appellate Court should interfere with a finding of fact made by a trial judge. Thus in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, Lord Reed (with whom Lords Kerr, Sumption, Carnwath and Toulson agreed) said at paragraph 67:…”
- Cited — RACHEL RILEY v MICHAEL SIVIER 2023-02-01
“…I draw these points from the Supreme Court’s decision in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 [2014] 1 WLR 2600 and three decisions of this court: Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 [2014] FSR 29 [114]-[115], Haringey LBC v Ahmed[2017] EWCA …”
- Explained — A (A Child : Findings of Fact), Re 2022-12-15
“…ndings of fact made by a trial judge if it is satisfied that the decision cannot reasonably be explained or justified: Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41 at para. 67. In this appeal from findings of fact arising from allegations of domestic abuse, including transnational marriage abandonment (‘stranding’), the a…”
- Cited — Anwar Gangat & Anor. v Yusuf Jassat 2022-05-06
“…trial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration (Thomas v Thomas [1947] AC 484 at 492 per Lord Simonds, Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 at [48] per Lord Reed JSC). In the present case the Judge had correctly noted in his Judgment at [16] that where documents had been suppressed there was a part…”
- Cited — Gabriele Volpi & Anor. v Matteo Volpi 2022-04-05
“…0; 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 Services (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 407; JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176, [2019] BCC 96; Staechelin v ACLBDD…”
- Cited — Mark Byers v The Saudi National Bank 2022-01-27
“…In Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd[2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, Lord Reed said at paragraph 67:…”
- Cited — Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima 2021-03-12
“…judge. The question is whether we are satisfied that the judge was wrong in the findings that he made. As Lord Reed said in Hendersonv Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [62]:…”
- Cited — Clin v Walter Lilly & Co. Ltd 2021-02-08
“…nt line of authorities is well-known and includes Fage UK Ltd (supra); Hamilton v Allied Domecq Plc [2006] SC 221 at [85]; Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 at [62]; Haringey LBC v Ahmed & Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 1861 at [29]-[31]; Volcafe Ltd & Ors v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA [2019] AC 358 at [41]; Perry …”
- Cited — Revenue And Customs v Development Securities Plc & Ors 2020-12-15
“…As regards that reluctance, Lord Reed noted in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at paragraph 67:…”
- Cited — Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation 2020-12-09
“…[2014] FSR 29 at [114] – [116] per Lewison LJ. For present purposes, it is sufficient to cite from Lord Reed’s judgment in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [67]:…”
- Cited — Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP 2020-08-28
“…itatively set out in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013]UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 1911 and other cases. As Lord Hodge expressed it in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [67]:…”
- Cited — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…In Henderson v. Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, Lord Reed said at [62] that “the adverb “plainly” [in plainly wrong] does not refer to the degree of confidence felt by the appellate court that it would not …”
- Explained — Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Achilles Information Ltd 2020-03-05
“… plainly wrong, in the sense that it is one that no reasonable judge or tribunal could have reached: see, for example, Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, at [61] and [67] per Lord Reed JSC. As we shall explain, we do not consider that Network Rail comes near to satisfying this exacting standa…”
- Cited — British Telecommunications PLC, R (On the Application Of) v Treasury 2020-01-21
“…In Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, the test was said (at [62]) to be whether the decision under appeal was one that no reasonable judge could have reached, and (at [66]) whet…”
- Cited — Kahrmann v Harrison-Morgan 2019-11-27
“…miliar, and supported by a great deal of authority at the highest level: see, for example, the judgment of Lord Reed JSC in Henderson vFoxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, at [62] and [67].…”
- Cited — Farrar & Anor v Rylatt & Ors 2019-11-08
“…Similar dicta can be found in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41 and Grizzley Business Limited v Stena Drilling Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 94 (at paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment of Longmore LJ). In the former at [67], Lord…”
- Followed — Britned Development Ltd v ABB AB And ABB Ltd 2019-10-31
“…Equally familiar are the observations of Lord Reed JSC in Henderson v FoxworthInvestments Limited [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, at [58] to [69], which include the following:…”
- Considered — Simetra Global Assets Ltd & Anor v Ikon Finance Ltd & Ors 2019-08-09
“…Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [67] to “a demonstrable failure to consider relevant evidence”.…”
- Cited — Z & Aanor, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Hackney & Anor 2019-06-27
“…pelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the lower court has taken the whole of the evidence into its consideration: Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600 at [48]; ACLBDD Holdings Ltd v Staechelin [2019] EWCA Civ 817 at [31]. Second, an appeal court should be reluctant to interfere with a lower…”
- Explained — Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors 2019-05-14
“…g: 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]:…”
- Cited — Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor (Rev 2) 2019-04-11
“…gs Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd [2007] UKHL 23; Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33;McGraddie v McGraddie[2013] UKSC 58; and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41…”
- Cited — Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor (Rev 2) 2019-04-11
“…[2014] UKSC 41…”
- Cited — Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust 2019-04-08
“…ated 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 of fact made at first instance. As was said in Henderso…”
- Cited — McDonald v Rose & Ors 2019-01-15
“…l evidence has played a material role. For the general approach, it is sufficient to refer to the judgment of Lord Reed in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, at [67]:…”
- Cited — W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV 2018-11-28
“…r 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
“…sions 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 satisfied that the trial judge has gone “plainly wrong”: see the…”
- Cited — Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd 2018-10-18
“…Shortly thereafter, in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41, Lord Reed said at paragraph 67:…”
- Cited — Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd 2018-10-18
“…The parties were broadly agreed upon the relevant 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 2…”
- Cited — Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2018-07-05
“…ciples 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 judgment is founded entirely upon the primary facts found by the judge. It will be seen, however, that in certain a…”
- Cited — A P Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd 2018-06-21
“…t something was not explicitly mentioned does not entitle an appeal court to infer that the trial judge overlooked it: see Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2600 at [48]…”
- Explained — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…ge 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 be possible to identify a material error in the judg…”
- Cited — JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor 2018-05-22
“…ons. 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 they are therefore not susceptible of interference by t…”
- Cited — Gresport Finance Ltd v Battaglia 2018-03-23
“…ong, in the sense that the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could have reached: see, for example, Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, at [58] – [69] per Lord Reed JSC. That case was not cited to us, but Mr Macpherson referred us to similar observations made by Sir Colin Ri…”
- Cited — Surrey v Barnet And Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust 2018-03-16
“…as a finding of fact the burden of persuading an appeal court to reverse a finding of fact is even higher: see for example Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600. However, I am content to proceed on the basis that the test is as stated in Solutia.…”
- Cited — Generator Developments Ltd v LIDL UK GmbH 2018-03-08
“… court is very reluctant to interfere with trial judges’ findings of fact. The recent cases on that subject are legion. In Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2600, Lord Reed said [62] that “[w]hat matters is whether the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could have reached”. At [67] …”
- Cited — Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc 2018-03-02
“…alsity which was essentially a matter of fact for her. We are certainly not satisfied she was, to adopt the phraseology of Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 WLR 2400, “plainly wrong”.…”