Pannozzo v Fowler

In *Pannozzo v Fowler*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a judgment entered in the absence of the defendant. The central dispute concerned whether the trial judge had erred in proceeding with the trial and entering judgment without the defendant being present, and whether the defendant had been afforded procedural fairness. The appeal also raised questions about whether grounds of appeal not pleaded at trial could be considered, and whether the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for the judgment.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had failed to afford procedural fairness to the defendant by proceeding to trial in the defendant's absence. This involved assessing whether adequate notice of the trial date had been given to the defendant, and if not, whether the trial judge had sufficient evidence before them to conclude that no notice was given. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in proceeding with the trial in the defendant's absence, and whether the appeal could succeed on grounds that were not raised in the defendant's pleadings or at the trial itself.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had not erred. The reasoning focused on the fact that the defendant's solicitor had ceased to act for the defendant, and that the trial judge had been satisfied that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the defendant of the trial date. The Court held that the evidence before the trial judge was adequate to support the conclusion that the defendant had not been notified. Regarding the new grounds of appeal, the Court indicated that while it had the power to consider them, they did not provide a basis for overturning the trial judge's decision. The Court also found no deficiency in the reasons provided by the trial judge.