Shuker v Inspecs Ltd (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 2668 (Ch) (21 October 2022)

Shuker v Inspecs Ltd (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 2668 (Ch) (21 October 2022)

The court dismissed the application for an interpreter because the hearing was procedural, did not determine substantive rights, and Mr Shuker demonstrated sufficient command of English for the purposes of the hearing. Provision of an interpreter by the court was not required by law or overriding objective, and would be disproportionate.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2668 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sahar Shuker; Defendant/respondent: Inspecs Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Interpreter at Oral Rehearing of Procedural Applications
Outcome
Application for interpreter dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpreter Provision, Fair Trial, Equality of Arms, Discretion of Court
Civil Procedure Interpreter Provision Fair Trial Equality of Arms Discretion of Court

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sahar Shuker

Claimant/appellant

Inspecs Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Interpreter at Oral Rehearing of Procedural Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should provide an interpreter for the appellant at a procedural hearing
  2. 2 Whether Article 6 ECHR or CPR Part 1 require provision of an interpreter

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the application for an interpreter because the hearing was procedural, did not determine substantive rights, and Mr Shuker demonstrated sufficient command of English for the purposes of the hearing. Provision of an interpreter by the court was not required by law or overriding objective, and would be disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Application for interpreter dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Shuker may engage an interpreter at his own expense to assist him at the hearing.
  • Mr Shuker may not address the court through the interpreter; he must do so himself.