DICK V PILER [1943] 1 All ER 627

COURT OF APPEAL

SCOTT AND DU PARCQ LJJ, AND CROOM-JOHNSON J

Summary of Fact of the Case

1. Counsel for the defendant applied for a further adjournment because defendant was too ill. Defendant’s evidence was very important to the case.

2. Without objection by the plaintiff's counsel, the judge received a medical certificate in support of counsel's statement

3. The judge refused the application and also a similar application made at the close of the plaintiff's case when no affidavit in support in support of the application was produced.

4. The counsel for defendant told the judge that the doctor could, if necessary, attend the court, or swear an affidavit. I think he also told the judge that it could be sworn that day, but the judge refused any adjournment.

Issue:

1. Whether there could be an appeal from the decision of a county court judge in refusing an adjournment.It is clear that an appeal from the decision lies only where there is an error of law.Whether or not a party is granted an adjournment is wholly in the discretion of the judge.However, Court of Appeal, have taken the view that the exercise of the discretion in that case amounted in the circumstances to a miscarriage of justice.

2. Whether county judge was right in refusing the application for adjournment.Wrong. Already give medical certificate, should give adjournment since he is material witness.

Plaintiff ‘s Arguments 1. Defendant doing this on purpose as he had requested it last time and it was granted already.

2. Stated that defendant once said "they would not get him to go to the court”

Defendant’s Arguments 1. Defendant sick, unable to attend hearing. 2. His evidence is very important3. Medical certificate provided to judge

Court’s decision and reasoning 1. The appeal on the decision of County judge in the adjournment can be tried. Appeal was allowed.

2. The county judge had erred in his decision as there is no justification for his refusal to grant adjournment upon being furnished the medical certificate.

3. The county judge had exercised his discretion upon wrong principles in refusing to adjourn the further hearing of the case on such terms as he might have imposed for the plaintiff's protection.

3. County court judge reason for refusal to grant

adjournment was “in absence of affidavit” is not inadequate reason to deprive the application.