Bates v London Borough Of Croydon

Where an interlocutory appeal concerns refusal of an adjournment, the appellate court must reconsider the decision according to the applicable procedural rules, while giving appropriate weight to the first-instance judge’s assessment. Although civil parties have no absolute right to professional representation, an adjournment may be required where the case is difficult, turns on credibility, involves substantial evidence, and the unrepresented party has had inadequate time to prepare. The need is especially compelling where legal aid is available but has been delayed and immediate possession of the party’s home is sought. Procedural expedition must yield where refusing an adjournment creates a substantial potential injustice.

The appellant’s home was subject to possession proceedings brought by the respondent local authority. The district judge refused adjournments sought to enable the appellant to obtain legal aid and legal representation, proceeded to hear allegations of nuisance, and made an unconditional possession order.

On appeal, the circuit judge incorrectly applied section 54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, although those provisions were not yet in force when the appeal was lodged. The central questions were the correct appellate approach and whether the adjournments should have been granted.

1. The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The district judge’s decisions refusing adjournments, and the resulting decision on possession, were set aside.
2. The appeal had been lodged before 2 May 2000. The applicable provisions were the former County Court Rules 1981, particularly Order 13 and rule 37(6), rather than Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or section 54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
3. Because the appeal concerned interlocutory decisions, the circuit judge should have heard it de novo and made the decision considered just, while giving due weight to the district judge’s superior familiarity with the parties and circumstances. The Court of Appeal could exercise the powers of the court below under section 15, including subsection (3), of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
4. There is no absolute right to legal representation in civil proceedings. Nevertheless, judicial assistance to a litigant in person may be inadequate in a case involving numerous allegations, substantial credibility issues, emotional involvement, and the need for coherent cross-examination.
5. Here, the appellant had only three days to respond to extensive evidence concerning 53 alleged incidents. Legal aid was available in principle but had been delayed. The proceedings concerned immediate and unconditional possession of her home. Those circumstances made representation materially important, and refusing an adjournment created a substantial potential injustice.

The Vice-Chancellor agreed with Lord Justice Mance and added that the immediacy and draconian nature of the possession order strengthened the need for adequate representation. The new trial was to take place as soon as possible, with costs in the event.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed; the possession decision was set aside and a new trial ordered.
• Croydon County Court: The circuit judge refused permission to appeal, applying Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and section 54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
• Croydon County Court: The district judge refused adjournments and made an unconditional possession order.