Davies v Apted

The plaintiff, Mr Davies, appealed a decision of the trial judge who found in favour of the defendant, Mr Apted. Mr Davies sought to recover monies advanced under an oral agreement, but Mr Apted denied liability, asserting he had acted in his capacity as controlling director of a company, SABC, when negotiating the loan. The trial judge had found that Mr Apted was liable in his personal capacity. The appeal argued that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider the surrounding circumstances and purpose of the transaction, and that relevant evidence had been overlooked or wrongly disregarded.

The appellate court was required to determine whether the trial judge had correctly construed the terms of the oral contract by considering all relevant evidence and surrounding circumstances. Specifically, the court had to assess if the judge had erred in law by limiting his consideration of the evidence or by misinterpreting its significance in concluding that Mr Apted was personally liable for the loan.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons to be comprehensive, concise, and compelling. The appellate judges agreed with the trial judge's findings and ultimate decision. They noted that the identity of the borrower was a question of fact, and that there was a clear basis for the judge's findings, irrespective of the plaintiff's own understanding of the legal situation. The court also made orders regarding the admission of an affidavit and the payment of costs.