Roshdi v Thames Trains Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 284 (20 February 2002)

Roshdi v Thames Trains Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 284 (20 February 2002)

The trial judge did not misdirect himself in law or act outside the ambit of his discretion in refusing an adjournment after the claimant lost legal representation; the decision was justified by the circumstances, including prior professional preparation, the presence of witnesses, and the overriding objective of the CPR.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 284
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Malik Roshdi; Defendant/respondent: Thames Trains Limited; Defendant/respondent: Railtrack PLC (in Railway Administration)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Adjournment and Dismissal at Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Litigant in Person, Legal Aid Withdrawal, Discretion of Trial Judge, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Adjournment of Trial Litigant in Person Legal Aid Withdrawal Discretion of Trial Judge Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malik Roshdi

Claimant/appellant

Thames Trains Limited

Defendant/respondent

Railtrack PLC (in Railway Administration)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Adjournment and Dismissal at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment after claimant lost legal representation
  2. 2 Whether the judge exercised his discretion properly under the Civil Procedure Rules
  3. 3 Whether costs considerations were improperly weighted in refusing adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not misdirect himself in law or act outside the ambit of his discretion in refusing an adjournment after the claimant lost legal representation; the decision was justified by the circumstances, including prior professional preparation, the presence of witnesses, and the overriding objective of the CPR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £2,250
  • Public funding assessment of Appellant's costs