In a clear and concise judgment by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Lord Burrows has reasserted the pre-eminent role of the trial judge to determine disputed facts, having had the advantage of seeing and hearing all the relevant evidence.

The case of <strong><a href="https://jcpc.uk/uploads/jcpc_2024_0064_judgment_de0de94c0d.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Christo Gift &amp; another v Dr Keith Rowley</em> [2025] UKPC 37</a></strong> featured the former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago as the successful appellant, but the subject matter was nothing to do with matters of state. It concerned an agreement Dr Rowley made in 1975 to acquire a parcel of an estate land in Tobago for the purposes of farming.  The precise boundaries of the land to be acquired were not settled at the time and all these years later a dispute arose with a person who was seeking to enforce a separately agreement made in 1998 to acquire the rest of the estate, which depended in turn on how much land had in fact being promised to Dr Rowley back in 1975.

The documentation was scanty and one of the main witnesses had died. It was a classic case in which the findings of fact were going to turn on the evidence of the surviving witnesses. The trial judge preferred Dr Rowley’s evidence and the disappointed party appealed.

The Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 majority, decided that the trial judge was plainly wrong and proceeded to substitute a different set of factual findings based on inferences drawn from some of the documentary evidence. This time, Dr Rowley appealed.