Sahar Shuker v Inspecs Limited

There is no automatic entitlement to an interpreter in English civil proceedings. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not itself require an interpreter, although exceptional circumstances may make one necessary for a fair hearing. Article 6 applies only to hearings determining civil rights or obligations. The court has a broad discretion under the overriding objective to decide whether an interpreter is required, having regard to the nature and importance of the hearing, the party’s ability to participate, proportionality and the proper use of court resources. A litigant in person may use an interpreter privately, but will ordinarily be expected to address the court personally where their command of English is sufficient.

The claimant had previously brought contractual proceedings against the defendant in Israel. Those proceedings were dismissed, including on appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel. He then issued proceedings in England seeking, among other relief, annulment of the Israeli decision and damages. District Judge Wales struck out the English claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The claimant applied for permission to appeal, a stay and an extension of time. The stay and extension applications were dismissed on paper, and an oral rehearing was listed. The claimant subsequently sought a court-provided interpreter. The issue was whether an interpreter was required for the rehearing of those procedural applications and, if not, whether the court should permit private interpretation.

1. Application dismissed. The court refused the claimant’s informal application for a court-provided interpreter, permitted him to engage an interpreter at his own expense, and directed that he address the court himself.
2. There is no general automatic right to an interpreter in English civil proceedings. Article 6(2)(e) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerns criminal charges. Article 6(1) does not itself imply a need for an interpreter and applies only where the hearing determines civil rights or obligations. Exceptional cases may nevertheless require interpretation to secure a fair trial.
3. The overriding objective in CPR Part 1 requires the court to balance participation and equality of opportunity with proportionality, expedition, fairness and the appropriate allocation of court resources. The court must ask whether it can reach a just conclusion on the issues and material before it despite the litigant’s linguistic disadvantage.
4. The court has a wide discretion as to the appropriate use of an interpreter. Interpretation may be appropriate for evidence or to enable a party to understand proceedings. It is not ordinarily necessary for a litigant in person to address the court through an interpreter where the litigant can present submissions adequately in English.
5. The forthcoming hearing concerned only the oral rehearing of procedural applications. It would not determine the claimant’s substantive rights. His written and oral conduct of the proceedings demonstrated a sufficient command of English, and he knew the reasons for the earlier refusals. Requiring a publicly funded interpreter would therefore be disproportionate. He could arrange private interpretation for his own assistance or for any evidence, but could not address the judge through that interpreter.

• District Judge Wales: struck out the claimant’s English claim for lack of jurisdiction.
• High Court, Chancery Appeals: determined the claimant’s application for a court-provided interpreter pending an oral rehearing of procedural applications. The application was dismissed, subject to permission for private interpretation at the claimant’s expense.