Court Adjourns Case Due to Communication Issues and Appellant's Non-Attendance: Imrene Radics v. Regional Court of Pecs (Hungary)

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2861 (Admin)
Judgment on


In reviewing the case of Imrene Radics v. Regional Court of Pecs (Hungary), [2023] EWHC 2861 (Admin), a detailed analysis is conducted to unravel the key events that transpired leading to the judgment delivered on 14th November 2023. The judgment concerns an adjournment due to communication difficulties primarily involving the appellant’s attendance and the availability of a necessary interpreter.

Key Facts

The appellant, Imrene Radics, was set to appear before the High Court of Justice for an oral renewal of permission to appeal. The court was properly prepared with an interpreter scheduled due to the appellant’s need. However, it was brought to the court’s attention that there were complications concerning the interpreter’s availability.

In an unexpected development, the appellant did not attend the hearing. The judgment further notes an issue with the appellant’s contact information; specifically, her personal email address was incorrectly recorded in the court system which may have led to a failure to notify her of the hearing date.

The legal principles at play in this judgment are procedural in nature and involve the right to a fair hearing as enshrined in common law and various statutes. This encompasses the appellant’s right to understand and participate in the legal proceedings, which necessitates the involvement of an interpreter when language barriers exist.

Procedural fairness also requires that parties to a case must receive proper notification of hearings. The potential breakdown in communication, due to an administrative error, implicates this right and invites the court to ensure that proper notice has been given, thus allowing the appellant the opportunity to present her case effectively.


As a result of the interpreter issue and the appellant’s absence, which may have been due to the lack of proper notification, Mr. Justice Fordham, presiding, adjourned the case. An important element of the judgment is the Judge’s reliance on procedural checks to validate the notification process, including the email communications that were intended to inform the appellant of the hearing date.

The court’s focus on administrative due diligence underscores an adherence to the principle that justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done, especially regarding the rights of a self-representing litigant to access the legal process fairly and equitably.


The judgment of [2023] EWHC 2861 (Admin) effectively highlights the court’s commitment to upholding procedural justice, emphasizing the necessity of clear communication and the provision of an interpreter where required. The adjournment decision demonstrates the court’s careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the appellant’s non-attendance, and the actions taken to rectify the situation reflect a judicious balance between maintaining court efficiency and ensuring equitable access to the legal system.