Grech v Deak-Fabrikant

The plaintiff in the case, Grech, filed an application for leave to proceed at trial in the absence of the defendant, Deak-Fabrikant, who had deliberately disregarded a court direction. The application was brought under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant, given the defendant's deliberate non-compliance with a court direction and breach of overarching obligations. Additionally, the court had to consider the rights of a self-represented litigant to a fair hearing.

The court examined the nature of the defendant's non-compliance and the impact it had on the proceedings. The deliberate disregard of a court direction and breach of overarching obligations raised questions about the defendant's commitment to the litigation process and the fairness of proceeding without their presence. The court acknowledged the rights of a self-represented litigant to a fair hearing but also recognised the importance of enforcing court directions and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant's deliberate non-compliance and breach of obligations justified granting the plaintiff leave to proceed at trial in the absence of the defendant.

The court concluded that the defendant's actions warranted the grant of leave to proceed at trial in their absence. The deliberate disregard of a court direction and breach of overarching obligations demonstrated a lack of commitment to the litigation process and posed a risk to the fairness of the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing court directions and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The orders granted included permission for the plaintiff to proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant and a direction for the defendant to show cause, if any, why the orders should not be made absolute.