H – Hearing argument and evidence
3/6/20
SERAFIN v MALKIEWICZ [2020] UKSC 23
Considers when a judge’s conduct of a trial will be considered unfair having regard to the extent to which the judge intervened in the proceedings [40] especially if the proceedings involve a litigant in person [46]. The judge had exhibited a barrage of hostility and had used immoderate, ill-tempered and at times offensive language which had caused a trial to be unfair. A re-trial was ordered.
19/7/17
TOPPING v RALPH TRISTEES LTD [2017] EWHC 1954 (QB)
Parties to litigation should not communicate with the court without simultaneously alerting the other parties to that fact [12].
12/7/13
DUNBAR ASSETS PLC v DORCAS HOLDINGS LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 864
A claim that a mortgagee had agreed to refrain from demanding repayment until development works had been undertaken was unlikely to amount to a defence to possession proceedings because it only provided a cross-claim for unliquidated damages. A judge can entertain a submission at the beginning of a trial that the pleadings disclose no defence, even if no strike out application has been made. But the judge must ensure the defendant has had a fair opportunity to respond and must hear submissions from the defendant. The judge’s failure to hear submissions in this case was a serious procedural irregularity justifying an appeal being allowed.
10/7/13
GLOBAL TORCH LTD v APEX GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 819
It was not appropriate to order interim hearings in unfair prejudice proceedings to be heard in private. Open justice required the case to be heard in public. The court summarised the applicable principles [13].
14/5/13
UNITED MARINE AGGREGATES LTD v GM WELDING & ENGINEERING LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 516
A judge had been wrong to disallow 50% of a party’s costs without giving that party an opportunity to be heard or to address argument on the matter.
27/3/13
WRIGHT v MICHAEL WRIGHT (SUPPLIES) LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 234
Where a litigant made it plain that he wanted to call a witness at trial and did not agree to a trial on the documents only, the judge had been wrong to make findings against the evidence the litigant wished to call. It was invaluable evidence for the judge to consider, was highly relevant and should not have been excluded.
9/11/12
HADI JEMALDEEN v A-Z LAW SOLICITORS [2012] EWCA Civ 1431
Interventions by a judge during cross-examination had been justified and necessary to keep a trial on track. The judge had not over-stepped the line between seeking legitimate clarification of the evidence and descending into the ‘arena’. He had not displayed bias or partiality against the appellant.
18/6/12
LABROUCHE V FREY [2012] EWCA Civ 881; [2012] 1 WLR 3160 (CA)
A judge hearing a striking out application must hear oral argument in support of it, unless the applicant is in contempt or subject to a civil restraint order. Where the judge has had the benefit of time to read all the papers and to consider a full written argument on behalf of the applicant and the respondent, he may properly be able to dispose of the hearing of the application more quickly than the parties and their advisers may have expected.