Miah v Ahmed [2023] EWHC 1742 (KB) (11 July 2023)

Miah v Ahmed [2023] EWHC 1742 (KB) (11 July 2023)

The trial judge erred in refusing the adjournment by applying the wrong standard regarding Covid-19 evidence and failing to consider the appropriateness of a remote hearing, given government guidance and the circumstances presented.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1742 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Harun Miah; Respondent/claimant: Amir Uddin Ahmed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Covid 19 and Court Procedure, Binding Nature of Agreements, Arbitration Agreements
Civil Procedure Adjournment of Trial Covid 19 and Court Procedure Binding Nature of Agreements Arbitration Agreements

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harun Miah

Appellant/defendant

Amir Uddin Ahmed

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment due to Covid-19 symptoms and change of legal representation
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct test for adjournment
  3. 3 Whether the 2018 Agreement was binding

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in refusing the adjournment by applying the wrong standard regarding Covid-19 evidence and failing to consider the appropriateness of a remote hearing, given government guidance and the circumstances presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of HHJ Lethem set aside
  • Matter remitted to the County Court for rehearing before a different judge