Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

Where there is genuine doubt whether a party received adequate notice of permission applications, the court should avoid proceeding to substantive argument in that party’s absence if an adjournment can secure a fair and efficient hearing. The court controls its own listing and is not bound by a litigant’s view that the matter should not be heard in vacation. An unauthorised third party cannot require the court to consult them before fixing a hearing date. The proper course is to give a clear new date and directions for representation, with any appeals to follow promptly if permission is granted.

Four applications for permission to appeal arose from orders made in continuing litigation between the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja and Nicholas Van Hoogstraten. The orders had been made by David Richards J on 22 March 2005, Lightman J on 12 May and 29 July 2005, and Etherton J on 23 June 2005. Preliminary issues were due to be tried in the High Court on 14 November 2005.

Mr Van Hoogstraten was absent. Correspondence gave rise to doubt whether the notice of the hearing had reached him promptly and whether he had authorised a third party to communicate on his behalf. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should proceed with the permission applications in his absence or adjourn them.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Lord Justice Chadwick, adjourned the four applications for permission to appeal to 11 October 2005.

1. The court considered that it would not be sensible to proceed in the applicant’s absence. There was genuine doubt whether the hearing notice had reached him at the intended time. Proceeding would risk arguments about inadequate notice and would expend time and resources better used on the substantive applications and, if necessary, the appeals.
2. The court rejected the objection that the applications should not be heard during the vacation. A litigant cannot dictate to the court whether a matter requires a vacation hearing. Nor could the third party who had written to the court require it to consult her before fixing a date, since there was no sufficient evidence that she represented Mr Van Hoogstraten.
3. The court fixed a new hearing date because the applications required expedition in view of the forthcoming trial. It directed that the applications be heard on notice to the Raja Estate and that any appeals should follow forthwith if permission were granted. The direction remained subject to further directions from the court hearing the applications.
4. The transcript was ordered to be prepared at public expense and sent to Mr Van Hoogstraten. The court made clear that he should arrange either to attend or to be represented and should not expect an adjournment on 11 October.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Four applications for permission to appeal were adjourned to 11 October 2005, with any appeals to follow forthwith if permission was granted: [2005] EWCA Civ 1180.
2. High Court (Chancery Division): Orders made by David Richards J, Lightman J and Etherton J on 22 March, 12 May, 23 June and 29 July 2005 were the subject of the permission applications. No citation for those orders was stated in the judgment.