Consequential relief where the merits were not tried
What we think the appellants can legitimately complain about is that by declining to consider the merits of either claim, the learned trial judge put it out of his power to make an order reversing the original debit. We think he could only properly have made the order if he had adjudicated on the merits of the case put forward by both sides and had come to the conclusion that the transfer of the debit of Edward Ramia Ltd. to the partnership account was wrong. Having decided not to go into the merits of the claim, we think his order reversing the original debit entry was a non sequitur and wrong.
It is a fundamental principle of judicial adjudication that a judgment or ruling of a court must do more than merely pronounce the conclusion reached. It must also disclose the reasons that have led the court to prefer one position over another. The judicial function requires a court to demonstrate, with sufficient clarity, the path by which it has moved from the competing arguments and submissions of the parties, as well as the evidence before it, to the conclusion ultimately reached. [47] It cannot be disputed that, at common law, the giving of reasons for a judgment is a fundamental requirement of the judicial process. Although judges and judicial officers are not necessarily required to provide exhaustive or detailed reasons for every aspect of their decision, they are required to demonstrate the reasoning process by which they have connected their findings of fact and the applicable law to the conclusions reached. This is necessary to enable the parties to understand how the ultimate decision was arrived at and, where appropriate, to enable an appellate court to properly review the decision.
It is a fundamental principle of judicial adjudication that a judgment or ruling of a court must do more than merely pronounce the conclusion reached. It must also disclose the reasons that have led the court to prefer one position over another. The judicial function requires a court to demonstrate, with sufficient clarity, the path by which it has moved from the competing arguments and submissions of the parties to the conclusion ultimately reached. [31] While reasons are not judged against a standard of perfection, they must be assessed in the context of the facts, the applicable law, and the submissions of the parties. A judgment or ruling must satisfactorily answer both the "what" and the "why" of the judge's decision, and those reasons must be clearly expressed.
In my view the judgment of the learned Commissioner of Assize and Civil Pleas is wholly unsatisfactory because it failed to assess the evidence and make definite findings of facts. There is no indication whatsoever in the judgment as to what part of the oral or documentary evidence the court accepted, and what part it rejected and the reasons for such acceptance or rejection, and the weight the court attached to it. Trial by a judge alone “means of course the substitution of a reasoned judgment for a verdict: but it means more than that” — see Trial by Jury by Sir Patrick Devlin at page 134. It is not enough for a judge sitting without a jury merely to say that he believes the evidence of the plaintiff or that he is impressed by his evidence and then to decide in his favour. It is of the utmost importance that he should indicate the considerations which influence him in deciding whether or not he should believe him.
It is undoubtedly correct that an appellate court dealing with an interlocutory matter must avoid making findings that determine the substantive dispute pending before the trial court. Such caution requires restraint in language and a limitation on the scope of the determination. However, that principle does not mean that a court hearing an interlocutory appeal is relieved of its duty to provide reasons for its decision.
Indeed, it is through the articulation of reasons that a court demonstrates that it has exercised the necessary restraint. The duty of the court is not to avoid giving reasons but to ensure that the reasons given are confined to the issue properly before it and do not determine matters reserved for the substantive trial.
That said, the failure of a court to provide adequate reasons does not necessarily render the entire judgment invalid or automatically require that it be set aside. The consequence of inadequate reasons depends on the circumstances of each case and the effect of that failure on the determination of the issues before the court.
Final judgment distinguished from declaratory judgment
A final judgment is sometimes defined as “a judgment obtained in an action by which a previous existing liability of the defendant to the plaintiff is ascertained or established”: per Cotton, L.J. in Ex parte Chinery; Re Chinery.6(6) A declaratory judgment on the other hand merely declares the rights of a party without any reference to their enforcement.
