EB Pension Fund & Ors v Nicholas Froggatt
[2024] EWHC 2721 (Ch)
Harun Miah v Amir Uddin Ahmed
11 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1742 (KB)
High Court
A man appealed a court decision against him because the judge wouldn't postpone the trial. The appeal court agreed that the judge was wrong because he focused too much on a COVID test the man didn't take, when a different test was what was recommended at the time. Therefore, the case has to be tried again by a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Harun Miah appealed a County Court judgment against him in favour of Amir Uddin Ahmed concerning a £60,000 agreement.
- •Miah's appeal challenged the agreement's validity, the judge's refusal to adjourn the trial, and the handling of an alleged arbitration agreement.
- •Miah's adjournment request was due to a late change in legal representation, alleged Covid-19 symptoms, and mental health issues.
- •The trial judge refused the adjournment, proceeding with the trial despite Miah's son's submissions on his behalf.
- •The judge considered Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 (QB) and Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch) regarding adjournment principles.
Legal Principles
Principles governing adjournment applications, considering factors such as late changes in representation, illness, and the need for adequate medical evidence.
Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 (QB) and Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on Ground 2 (refusal to adjourn).
The judge erred in criticizing Miah for not obtaining an LFT to prove Covid-19 symptoms when government guidance at the time prioritized PCR tests for symptomatic individuals. The judge should have inquired about Miah's willingness and ability to participate remotely.
The case is remitted to the County Court for rehearing before a different judge.
A rehearing is necessary due to the judge's error on Ground 2 and the difficulty of a judge putting aside prior knowledge of the case.