Ahmed v Butt

A trial judge must keep an adjournment request under review where an unrepresented party says that illness prevents effective participation. If the judge’s own interventions demonstrate that the party cannot be heard, fairness will ordinarily require an adjournment. The court must also ensure that an unrepresented party has a proper opportunity to address evidence and make closing submissions, particularly where further evidence is received after that party has given evidence. A decision reached after proceedings that would appear unfair to an objective observer cannot stand, even if the result might otherwise have been justified by the evidence.

The claimant sought a share of the proceeds from the sale of property, alleging that she had advanced money to the defendant under an agreement for repayment with interest and an equal share of the profit. The defendant admitted the arrangement but alleged that he had repaid the money to the claimant’s father in Pakistan.

At trial in the Central London County Court, the defendant appeared in person and sought an adjournment because of a voice disorder. The judge continued despite difficulty hearing him, recalled a witness after the defendant had given evidence, and did not allow the defendant to address the court on that further evidence. The defendant appealed the order of HHJ Dean QC dated 26 January 2005. The central issue was whether the trial had been conducted fairly.

Appeal allowed and action remitted for a new trial before a different judge.

1. The judge was initially entitled to continue temporarily while keeping the adjournment request under review. However, the transcript showed repeated difficulty in hearing the defendant during cross-examination. At that point, the judge should have reconsidered the request and granted an adjournment.
2. The defendant was unrepresented and had no witness statement setting out his evidence, partly because the earlier stay had disrupted the directions timetable. This increased the need for the judge to ensure that he could present his case effectively.
3. After the defendant gave evidence, the judge recalled the claimant’s father and questioned him about matters that could have been raised in cross-examination. The defendant was then not given a proper opportunity to comment on that further evidence or to make closing submissions. The judge instead stopped counsel’s submissions after treating the case as a simple credibility dispute.
4. The proceedings therefore failed to meet the standards of fairness required by law. The fairness of the trial was decisive, regardless of whether the judge may have reached the correct conclusion on the evidence. Permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the action was remitted for a new trial. There was no order as to costs.

• Central London County Court: HHJ Dean QC made an order on 26 January 2005 following a trial of the claimant’s claim for repayment and a share of profit.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the action was remitted for a new trial before a different judge.