Mahajan v London Borough of Barnet & Anor

When deciding whether to adjourn a permission-to-appeal hearing, the court must balance fairness to the applicant and respondents with the need to deal with litigation reasonably promptly. Respondents should know where they stand without undue delay. If an appeal proceeds, its substantive hearing should not be postponed unnecessarily. A limited adjournment may be appropriate where the court can accommodate the applicant by fixing an alternative date while ensuring that the matter proceeds within a defined period.

The underlying proceedings were a defamation action in which Eady J gave summary judgment for the defendants. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal and sought more time to prepare for the hearing of his application for permission to appeal, relying on commitments in other litigation. Master Venne refused the request and left the hearing listed for 5 June 2003. The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration of that direction. The central issue was whether fairness required an adjournment and, if so, how far the hearing should be delayed.

Disposition. The application for an adjournment was granted. The hearing fixed for 5 June 2003 was removed from the list and refixed for 27 June 2003, when it was directed to proceed. A transcript of the judgment was to be made available to the judge hearing the permission application.

1. The court had to act fairly to both sides. It also had to deal with applications for permission to appeal and appeals reasonably promptly. The respondents were entitled to know where they stood without avoidable delay, while a successful appeal should not lead to an unduly delayed substantive hearing.
2. The applicant had lodged his notice of appeal on 4 March 2003. The court noted that the permission hearing involved only whether there was a real prospect of showing that the statement of case in the defamation action had a reasonable prospect of success. His competing litigation commitments nevertheless justified some accommodation.
3. The court had offered an alternative hearing date in June. To balance sympathy for the applicant’s immediate objection with the need for expedition, it selected 27 June as the latest appropriate date and directed that the hearing must then go forward.

High Court: Eady J gave summary judgment for the defendants in the defamation action.

Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Master Venne refused the applicant’s request for more time and left the permission hearing listed for 5 June 2003. On reconsideration, the Court of Appeal granted a limited adjournment and refixed the hearing for 27 June 2003.