Khudados v Hayden & Ors

Khudados v Hayden & Ors

The trial judge was entitled to refuse the adjournment application due to insufficient medical evidence, the claimant's refusal to cooperate with further examination, and the history of repeated adjournments. There was no breach of duty by respondents' counsel in not disclosing Dr Thillainayagam's report. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Etedal Khudados; Respondent: Jacky Hayden; Respondent: North Western Deanery; Respondent: Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal, Heard on Notice, Against Dismissal of Claim After Refusal of Adjournment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Case Management Discretion, Medical Evidence in Adjournment Applications, Right to Fair Trial, Professional Conduct of Advocates
Civil Procedure Employment Law Adjournment of Trial Case Management Discretion Medical Evidence in Adjournment Applications Right to Fair Trial Professional Conduct of Advocates

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Etedal Khudados

Appellant

Jacky Hayden

Respondent

North Western Deanery

Respondent

Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal, Heard on Notice, Against Dismissal of Claim After Refusal of Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment on medical grounds, leading to dismissal of the claim
  2. 2 Whether the omission of a medical report (Dr Thillainayagam's) from the evidence before the judge was material and/or a breach of duty by respondents' counsel
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's Article 6 right to a fair trial was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to refuse the adjournment application due to insufficient medical evidence, the claimant's refusal to cooperate with further examination, and the history of repeated adjournments. There was no breach of duty by respondents' counsel in not disclosing Dr Thillainayagam's report. The claimant was not denied a fair trial as she was given a reasonable opportunity to present her case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted but appeal dismissed
  • No order for further adjournment