[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Mahajan v London Borough of Barnet & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 758 (02 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/758.html Cite as: [2003] EWCA Civ 758

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
(MASTER VENNE)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		2nd June 2003

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: In this application by Mr Mahajan he has asked me to reconsider a direction of Master Venne on 9th May 2003 to the effect that his case should remain in the list for hearing at an application for permission to appeal next Thursday, 5th June.
2. This is a defamation action. Eady J gave summary judgment for the defendants. On 4th March 2003 Mr Mahajan lodged his notice of appeal. Time was taken up in preparing the bundles, and eventually the court notified him that the hearing of his application would take place on 5th June.
3. On 2nd May Mr Mahajan asked the court for more time to prepare. He said that he had to lodge a witness statement in another appeal in the Supreme Court by 7th May; he had an application to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg which had a deadline of 29th June; he had two further applications to that court for which the deadline was 15th June; he had another appeal to file by 14th May; he had another appeal in relation to a perverse decision which he had to file by 14th May. He said that he was extremely tied up for the whole of May and he could not prepare himself for a hearing on 5th June.
4. On 9th May Master Venne refused his application. However, Mr Mahajan persisted in contending that it would be unfair to him if the hearing was listed on 5th June. When it was suggested that his application to challenge Master Venne's order should be listed before the judge who conducted the substantive hearing of his application for permission to appeal, Mr Mahajan said that this would be inconvenient because he had to attend the Job Centre that day. The matter was therefore listed as vacation business to come before me today.
5. Mr Mahajan left the court as soon as I told him what my ruling would be. He is concerned that the courts of this country and the judges of this country are corrupt, and that litigants in person cannot expect to receive a fair hearing. He showed me an extract from a ruling of the European Commission of Human Rights which suggested that in one case the court had been rather hard on a litigant.
6. I explained to him during the course of the hearing that the court has to be fair to both sides in matters of this kind. It also has to ensure that it deals with the applications for permission to appeal and the appeals reasonably promptly. If the matter is not to go forward it is only fair for the respondents to know where they stand reasonably quickly. On the other hand, if the appeal is to go forward and in a case like this the appeal is allowed, it is in the interests of justice that the substantive hearing should not be too long delayed.
7. I was anxious during the course of the hearing that Mr Mahajan might feel that he was being dictated to -- the court forcing him to accept a hearing date to which he had immediately objected -- and I gave him the option of a different hearing date in June. I said that the court must hear this matter before the end of June, so that it would not be unduly delayed for the reasons I have explained. Mr Mahajan was adamant that he has so much other litigation on his plate that he could not possibly prepare an application for permission to appeal during the month of June, although he had lodged his notice of appeal on 4th March and the only issue to be considered by the judge hearing the application is whether there is a real prospect of successfully showing that his statement of case in his defamation action has a reasonable prospect of success. He was adamant that he had a great deal of work to do in other litigation.
8. In the end, in order to ensure that the court is not seen to be wholly unsympathetic to someone who immediately objects to the first date which is suggested for his hearing, I took the view that it would be appropriate to refix this application on 27th June which is an available hearing date.
9. The case will therefore be taken out of the list for 5th June and refixed on 27th June when the hearing must go forward. I direct that a transcript of this judgment be made available to the judge who conducts the hearing on 27th June.

ORDER: Application for an adjournment of the application fixed for 5th June granted and the case refixed for 27th June; a transcript of this judgment to be made available to the judge who conducts the hearing on 27th June.

(Order not part of approved judgment)