At a trial under the small claims procedure, the registrar had declined to allow the defendant company to dross examine the plaintiff, and the counr court judge had held that decision to be well within the registrar’s discertion under the rules, on the basis that as acting without lawyers, they would be unable to achieve similar cross examinations of the dfenedants.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘Informality is all important in these small claims cases provided that the rules of natural justice are observed; and while I have not actually invited Mr. Foskett to defend his application for further and better particulars in this case, they are virtually indefensible. It was an attempt to turn this arbitration into a High Court hearing with detailed requests for information of which there was not the slightest need since they were already set out in a document prepared by the claimant. That is the sort of formality which should be disapproved of without qualification; but cross-examination is quite different. I would set the award aside and reluctantly, because additional costs may be involved, would direct that it be re-heard by a different registrar. ‘
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson MR, Slade, Lloyd LJJ
Citations:
[1984] EWCA Civ 1, [1986] BTLC 11, [1986] 1 All ER 841
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Allen v Allen CA 1894
Lopes LJ said: ‘It appears to us contrary to all rules of evidence, and opposed to natural justice, that the evidence of one party should be received as evidence against another party, without the latter having an opportunity of testing its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.258756