Simou v Salliss & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 312 (28 April 2017)

Simou v Salliss & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 312 (28 April 2017)

The trial judge's refusal to adjourn was not plainly wrong. Any procedural irregularity in failing to rule on the first application caused no injustice, as Mr Salliss was able to participate in the trial. The second refusal was justified on the evidence, including the lack of credible medical evidence and the conduct of the appellants. The appeal was dismissed as there was no procedural unfairness warranting a retrial.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 312
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Terry Simou; Claimant/respondent: Christie Greenfield; Defendant/appellant: Michael Salliss; Defendant/appellant: Hazel Salliss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Orders After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Procedural Fairness, Case Management, Litigants in Person
Civil Procedure Adjournment of Trial Procedural Fairness Case Management Litigants in Person

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Simou

Claimant/respondent

Christie Greenfield

Claimant/respondent

Michael Salliss

Defendant/appellant

Hazel Salliss

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Orders After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing two applications to adjourn the trial due to the ill health of the first defendant, Mr Michael Salliss
  2. 2 Whether the refusals resulted in procedural unfairness justifying a retrial

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's refusal to adjourn was not plainly wrong. Any procedural irregularity in failing to rule on the first application caused no injustice, as Mr Salliss was able to participate in the trial. The second refusal was justified on the evidence, including the lack of credible medical evidence and the conduct of the appellants. The appeal was dismissed as there was no procedural unfairness warranting a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No retrial ordered
  • Final orders of the trial judge stand