Dekkan v Picciau

The appeal concerned a District Court judge's refusal to grant an adjournment to the applicant, Mr. Dekkan, who was the defendant in proceedings brought by the respondent, Mr. Picciau. Mr. Dekkan had withdrawn his legal representation during the course of the hearing, and the trial judge proceeded to hear the matter in his absence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge erred in refusing the adjournment, thereby denying Mr. Dekkan procedural fairness. This involved considering whether the evidence presented, including further medical evidence and evidence relating to the alleged denial of truth of statements made by Mr. Dekkan's lawyer, warranted an adjournment, and whether the balance of prejudice between the parties favoured granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court judge had not erred in refusing the adjournment. While acknowledging the seriousness of Mr. Dekkan's medical condition and his withdrawal of instructions, the court considered that the judge had properly balanced the prejudice to Mr. Dekkan against the prejudice to Mr. Picciau. The further medical evidence did not establish that Mr. Dekkan was unable to attend court, and the evidence concerning the lawyer's statements did not directly address the core issue of Mr. Dekkan's absence. The judge had also considered the history of the proceedings and the potential for further delay.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal.