Soloman v Savage

The appeal concerned the refusal of an adjournment by the trial judge in proceedings between Soloman and Savage. The defendant, Savage, had sent a notice of motion and an affidavit to the court on the day before the hearing. The affidavit alleged that Savage had received menacing text messages threatening him if he attended court. Savage did not attend the hearing, nor did anyone appear on his behalf.

The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the trial judge erred in dismissing Savage's application for an adjournment and subsequently dismissing the notice of motion for want of prosecution. This involved considering the adequacy of the evidence presented to support the adjournment request and the trial judge's discretion in managing the proceedings.

The appellate court found that the trial judge had acted appropriately. The judge had granted two short adjournments to allow for the defendant's attendance or representation. However, no evidence was presented to establish that a solicitor, barrister, or any other agent could not appear on Savage's behalf. The affidavit's claims about menacing text messages, while noted, did not, in the absence of further evidence or explanation, justify a further adjournment or excuse the lack of representation. The trial judge's decision to dismiss the motion for want of prosecution was therefore upheld.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. Leave was granted to Mr El Khoury to file and serve any submissions and/or evidence within 21 days of the judgment.