[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Tudor v Laniyan [2001] EWCA Civ 2069 (13 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2069.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2069

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WILLESDEN COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Ryland)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday 13th December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application by Mr Laniyan who challenges orders made by Judge Ryland sitting in the Willesden County Court on 19^th September 2001 when he granted injunctions on the application of Ms Roselyn Tudor preventing violence or molestation and preventing Mr Laniyan from visiting her two homes which she used, one being her own mother's home. The orders were made on application for non-molestation and essentially arose out of an unfortunate fracas which took place on 19^th May 2001 in and outside MacDonalds in Kilburn.
2. Sadly, these two dispute contact arrangements for Mr Laniyan with his daughter Roberta, who is just three years of age. On this occasion there was an access visit. It seems that it started to go wrong in MacDonalds. The parties then fell into altercation outside. In the course of that fracas, Mr Laniyan said that Ms Tudor had driven her car at him with the intention of running him down. She said that he had bashed in the car window frightening herself and Roberta.
3. The judge heard evidence not only from these two parents but also from Ms Tudor's elder daughter Elizabeth, who is grown up. He also heard from a witness relied on by Mr Laniyan and Mr Rock. So he had to resolve conflicting accounts of what had happened and who was responsible. He firmly preferred the case presented by the applicant, although noting that there were differences between her evidence and her daughter's evidence. Nonetheless, he did not feel that those differences invalidated their basic credibility. He was particularly impressed by the evidence of Elizabeth. It was in those circumstances that he rejected the evidence of Mr Laniyan and the evidence of Mr Rock as to what went on in MacDonalds.
4. In those circumstances, it was obviously open to him in his discretion to make the orders which he did. Mr Laniyan, in a succinct and lucid skeleton argument, has made a number of criticisms of the judge, some of which may have some validity. But the basic problem confronting Mr Laniyan in this application is that this was a trial of an issue on fact. Its resolution depended upon a clear judgment as to which version of events was the more reliable, and the judge reached that conclusion firmly, preferring the version advanced by the applicant.
5. As I have sought to explain to Mr Laniyan, it is simply not open to me in this court to question such a function. It was for the judge to decide that very fundamental question. He decided it as he did and there is nothing which begins to justify the grant of permission in this case. As I have sought to explain to Mr Laniyan, it is extremely difficult to challenge a judicial finding of fact and perhaps even more difficult to challenge a judicial finding of credibility.
6. I am grateful to Mr Laniyan for accepting my provisional rejection of his application with such realism and good humour. In the end, all I can do is to dismiss the application. Thank you Mr Laniyan.