Sahar Shuker v Inspecs Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Paul Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2668 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CH-2022-BRS-000009 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2022] EWHC 2668 (Ch)
HHJ Paul Matthews
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: CH-2022-BRS-000009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL
CHANCERY APPERALS LIST (ChD)
ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUDGE WALES
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
The Appellant in person
Application dealt with on paper
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment will be handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties or representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 4:00 pm on Friday 21 October 2022.
Introduction
This is my decision on the need for an interpreter at a forthcoming hearing. Mr Shuker, who is an Israeli businessman, originally brought a claim against the defendant, an English company, in the Jerusalem District Court, in Israel, in relation to an alleged contract between the parties for exclusive distribution in Israel of products produced by the defendant. The claim was heard, and ultimately dismissed by the judge on 18 October 2017, on the basis that there was no such contract. Mr Shuker appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Israel. The appeal was also dismissed, on 10 January 2021.
Mr Shuker issued the present claim here in England on 16 December 2021, seeking the annulment by the English court of the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court, on the basis of the alleged conflicts of interest of the judges who sat, and damages in the sum of just under £4 million. He appeared to seek a rehearing in England of the original contractual claim first heard in Jerusalem. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. DJ Wales heard the application on 2 August 2022, when the claimant appeared in person and the defendant by counsel. The district judge acceded to the application. He struck out the claim.
Mr Shuker applied on 1 September 2022 for (1) permission to appeal against the order of DJ Wales, (2) a stay of the order pending the appeal, and (3) an extension of time in which to file the appeal bundle. I refused the second and third of those applications (stay and extension of time) on paper, on 20 September 2022, for reasons then given. The application for permission to appeal will be dealt with in due course by Mr Justice Zacaroli.
The application for an interpreter
On 26 September 2022 Mr Shuker applied for an oral rehearing of the second and third applications. I acceded to this application, and it is now fixed to take place by remote video hearing on 1 November 2022, with a time estimate of 30 minutes. By email dated 19 October 2022 Mr Shuker has also now asked for an interpreter to be provided by the court for this hearing. He points out that one of his grounds of appeal against the decision of DJ Wales is that, despite request, no interpreter was provided, and that therefore the procedure was not fair.
In general, in English civil procedure there is no automatic right to an interpreter. There are special provisions relating to proceedings in Wales or involving Welsh speakers (see the Welsh Language Act 1993, and CPR PDW 39.5). In addition, Article 6(2)(e) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to the trial of criminal charges. But none of those applies here. There are also the (more general) right to a fair trial under article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the “overriding objective” in CPR Part 1.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
So far as relevant, Article 6 deals with “the determination” of a person's “civil rights or obligations”. Accordingly, it does not apply to hearings which do not determine such things. For example, in Re Trusts of the X Charity [2003] 1 WLR 2751, Morritt V-C said:
“12. As the opening words of article 6(1) make plain it only applies to “the determination of… civil rights”. An application to the court by trustees for directions may well affect but does not normally determine the civil rights of anyone. Similar procedures exist for the protection of other fiduciaries such as liquidators or receivers: cf Craig v Humberclyde Industrial Finance Group Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 129, 135–136, paras 15–19. This, essentially administrative, jurisdiction is designed to provide guidance to the fiduciary as to the proper exercise of his powers in the problematic circumstances with which he is faced. Only rarely could it be said to determine the rights of anyone.”
In the recent case of Brake v Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2021] EWHC 2700 (Ch), dealing with article 6, I said:
“13. … Article 6 implies the principle of ‘equality of arms’ (which also appears in CPR rule 1.1(2)(a) as part of the overriding objective), but this does not mean equality of resources. In the civil context it really means equality of opportunity in an adversarial process, for example to adduce evidence, comment on evidence and cross-examine witnesses in appropriate cases. For a recent example, see MacDonald v Animal Plant and Health Agency [2021] EWHC 2325 (QB), [46].”
In the earlier decision of Hak v St Christopher's Fellowship [2016] ICR 411, EAT, Langstaff J had said:
“41. … It must, however, be remembered that article 6 itself does not speak directly of a party having an absolute right to the services of an interpreter. AB v Slovakia speaks of affording a reasonable opportunity to present the case. Natural justice does not guarantee the party an absolute right to present a case in court, but (in context) a reasonable opportunity to do so.”
In my judgment, Article 6 does not of itself imply the need for an interpreter, although there may be exceptional cases where this is necessary for a fair trial to take place. Even if it did, it would only apply when the hearing “determined” civil rights or obligations, and not every hearing does so. In my judgment, the forthcoming hearing will not do so.
Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 1
Another legislative source is CPR Part 1. This provides for the so-called “overriding objective” of English civil procedure. That is “enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.” This includes “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings”, but also
“(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.”
In Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs [2005] EWCA Civ 468, Mr Dobbs complained that he had been wrongly refused legal aid, and that therefore he came before the court at a serious disadvantage as a litigant in...
To continue reading
Request your trial