Abbas v Seer Technologies Inc

Where an appellate court has only a partial or incomplete transcript of relevant lower-court proceedings, it may adjourn the application until a complete transcript is available. The court may also direct that the transcript be obtained and supplied to the applicant and the court at public expense where the circumstances justify that course.

The applicant, Saadi Kail Abbas, appeared in person in an application concerning proceedings before Jacob J in the High Court, Chancery Division, on 23 July 2001. The respondent, Seer Technologies Inc, was neither present nor represented.

The Court of Appeal had received only part of the transcript of the High Court proceedings. The available transcript began at a point when the applicant was no longer in court, and it was uncertain whether other relevant portions were missing. The issue was how the application should proceed in the absence of a complete transcript.

1. Application adjourned. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, adjourned the application until a complete transcript of the proceedings before Jacob J on 23 July 2001 became available.
2. The court considered that the transcript supplied was incomplete. It contained approximately nine pages from the afternoon proceedings and began after the applicant had plainly left court. The court could not determine whether further portions were missing from the period when he was present or absent.
3. The court directed that a complete transcript of the 23 July proceedings be produced and provided to the applicant and the court at public expense.
4. The operative order was a direction for production and supply of the complete transcript, followed by adjournment of the application until that transcript was available.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application was adjourned pending production of a complete transcript of the High Court proceedings. The transcript was to be provided to the applicant and the court at public expense.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: The relevant proceedings took place before Mr Justice Jacob on 23 July 2001. The judgment does not state the lower court's substantive order or provide its citation.