Roshdi v Thames Trains Ltd & Anor

Where a litigant unexpectedly loses legal representation at the start of a trial, the court must exercise its discretion on the basis of the circumstances actually facing the litigant. A previous case is not controlling where the relevant party had substantial advance notice of the representation problem but the present litigant did not. In an appropriate case, the Court of Appeal may adjourn an application for permission to appeal so that it can be heard on notice, with any application to admit new evidence dealt with at that hearing.

The claimant sought permission to appeal against orders made by the Central London County Court during a liability hearing in her personal-injury claim. On the morning fixed for trial, her solicitor and counsel were permitted to come off the record. Her application for an adjournment was refused, and she presented her case in person. The judge then upheld the defendants’ submission of no case to answer.

The claimant argued that the judge had failed properly to address the exceptional circumstances in which she had unexpectedly been left without representation. The central issue was whether the permission application should first be adjourned for a hearing on notice, allowing the factual position and any new evidence to be considered.

1. Application adjourned. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was adjourned for a hearing on notice, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted.
2. The circumstances were materially different from those in Lloyds Bank v Dix, where the relevant parties had known for a considerable time that they could not rely on legal representation at trial. The claimant appeared not to have received equivalent advance notice that her representatives might be unable to act.
3. That distinction was material to the exercise of the court’s discretion. The judge had considered the claimant’s shock, the cost of an adjournment, his view of the likely value of the claim, and the presence of the defendants’ witnesses. However, the full facts concerning the legal-aid position had not been placed before him.
4. Any application formally to introduce new evidence should be made at the adjourned hearing. The claimant was warned that, if unsuccessful because the judge’s discretion was not plainly wrong, she might have to pay the costs. Costs of the present and previous hearings were reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The claimant sought permission to appeal from orders made by His Honour Judge Levy QC in the Central London County Court. The application was adjourned for a hearing on notice.
• Central London County Court: The judge refused an adjournment, proceeded with the claimant acting in person, and found for the defendants on a submission of no case to answer.