The background out of which the whole claim arises and explains the nature of this counterclaim was that the claimants were claiming professional fees in relation to the modernisation of a manufacturing entity being built on top of or in the old structures of a water mill.

The two aspects of the judgment about which complaint is made can be dealt with in the same order as did Mr Reese, who has very ably put forward what must always be a difficult argument in relation to permission to appeal to this court, that the judge essentially got matters of fact and discretion wrong, namely the argument based upon the defendants' counterclaim for 149,053 for the consequences of an overspill out of the defendants' building of a noxious liquid into a water course which required the amount claimed to be expended in cleaning up the building so as to prevent such an event from happening.ģ. There is no doubt that having heard all the oral evidence and put it against the documents, the judge formed, as he expressly said, an adverse view of the evidence given both by the witnesses as to fact on behalf of the defendants and the expert witnesses called by them.Ģ. The judgment was given at the end of a trial which had lasted more than 50 days, during the course of which there had been substantial oral evidence from the claimants, the defendants and their respective experts.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application for permission toappeal two aspects of a judgment of His Honour Judge Gilliland QC which was formally handed down on 5th February 2001 and also for permission to appeal in respect of the orders made for interest and costs.

Civ 5 water mill