Kohanzad v Chief Constable of Derbyshire

An appellate court should not interfere with routine case-management or costs decisions falling within the first-instance judge’s discretion unless good grounds are shown. A transfer to the County Court may be appropriate despite a substantial pleaded claim where that court has jurisdiction and is the convenient forum. An order made in a party’s absence is not improper where the judge could fairly determine the issue on the material before the court and the absent party has an opportunity to seek a further hearing.

The applicant brought civil proceedings concerning alleged assaults by Derbyshire police officers. At a case management hearing before HHJ Orrell, held when the applicant was imprisoned and represented only by a letter, the trial date was vacated, the proceedings were transferred to Derby County Court, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the hearing.

The applicant appealed against the transfer and costs order. The central issues were whether the judge had acted impermissibly in making the orders in the applicant’s absence and whether the orders fell outside his case-management and costs discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Buxton gave the first judgment and Lord Justice Potter agreed.
2. The transfer to Derby County Court involved routine case-management questions with which an appellate court would rarely interfere. The County Court had ample jurisdiction to determine the claim, and was the most convenient forum. The size of the claim as pleaded did not limit the damages that could be recovered. The judge did not require the applicant’s presence to reach that conclusion.
3. The costs order was within the judge’s discretion. The case-management hearing had been fixed for some time, but the application to vacate it was made only the previous day and in obscure terms. The proceedings had also made insufficient progress. The respondent’s solicitors were not shown to have acted culpably by failing to know of the applicant’s imprisonment, and it was for the applicant to seek vacation of the hearing if he could not attend.
4. The fact that the orders were made in the applicant’s absence did not itself justify appellate intervention. If that was his complaint, he could have applied to the judge for a further hearing after his release. No ground for disturbing either order was established.

Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.

1. Derby County Court: HHJ Orrell made case-management orders transferring the proceedings, vacating the trial date and ordering the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.