Emojevbe v Secretary of State for Transport

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a resident of the United Kingdom originally from Nigeria and self-employed as an education consultant, applied for a driving licence from Company A in July 2007. He submitted three passports and a stamped, self-addressed special delivery envelope for the return of identity documents. Company A returned the passports by first-class post rather than using the special delivery envelope. The passports were never delivered, and the Appellant claimed that this loss caused substantial economic damage due to his inability to travel for work.

The Appellant initiated legal proceedings against Company A, claiming negligence. The case experienced significant procedural delays and multiple hearings. A trial was scheduled for 26 September 2012. Two days before the trial, the Appellant applied for an adjournment on medical grounds due to knee pain, submitting a fit note and medical evidence. The application was refused, and summary judgment was entered against the Appellant in his absence. The Appellant’s subsequent appeal against this order was dismissed by a higher court on 22 April 2015. The current appeal challenges that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant had a "good reason" under CPR 39.3(5)(b) for not attending the trial, specifically regarding the sufficiency and impact of his medical evidence.
2. Whether the Appellant had a reasonable prospect of success at trial under CPR 39.3(5)(c).
3. The appropriate application of legal principles governing applications to set aside judgments entered in the absence of a party, particularly the interpretation and application of CPR 39.3.
4. The extent to which statutory limitation of liability under the Postal Services Act 2000 applies to the claim against Company A.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The medical evidence submitted was sufficient to show he was unfit not only to work but also to attend court.
• He had a consistent attendance record at court prior to the trial and had not sought previous adjournments.
• He was eager for the trial to proceed to obtain compensation for the losses suffered due to the loss of his passports.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s decision was a discretionary exercise that should not be interfered with.
• The evidence did not satisfy even the less rigorous test under Pereira for a good reason for non-attendance.
• Reasonable adjustments could have accommodated the Appellant’s mobility issues.
• The medical evidence was limited to a stand-alone "sick note" and did not justify adjournment or setting aside the judgment.
• The statutory limitation of liability under the Postal Services Act 2000 absolves Company A from responsibility for the lost passports once posted, as the Post Office is the universal service provider with exclusions of liability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the Appellant’s failure to attend the trial under CPR 39.3(5), which requires that the applicant (a) acted promptly, (b) had a good reason for non-attendance, and (c) had a reasonable prospect of success. There was no dispute on promptness.

The court found that the lower court judge erred by focusing narrowly on whether the Appellant was physically capable of attending court on the trial day, rather than considering the totality of the evidence surrounding his medical condition, including pain and the impact on his ability to conduct the litigation effectively. The judge had applied the more stringent test from Levy v Ellis Carr, appropriate for adjournment applications, rather than the less rigorous but fact-sensitive test from Pereira, which governs CPR 39.3 applications.

The court emphasized that the Appellant’s illness was genuine, with medical evidence showing subsequent surgery and extended incapacity. There was no history of non-attendance or previous adjournment requests. The Appellant’s pain and reduced mobility were relevant to whether he had a good reason for non-attendance, including considerations of fairness and ability to participate in the trial.

Regarding the reasonable prospect of success, the court agreed with the lower court that the Appellant had no claim in contract but found that he had a good arguable case in negligence. The Respondent’s argument that statutory immunity under the Postal Services Act 2000 barred the claim was rejected on the facts because Company A failed to use the special delivery envelope, which undermined reliance on the statutory exclusion.

The court concluded that the lower court judge erred in law by applying the wrong standard to the medical evidence and failed to consider all relevant factors. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, permitting the Appellant to proceed to trial on the merits.

Holding and Implications

The court's final ruling was that the appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed. The Appellant’s application to set aside the summary judgment was improperly refused, and the claim in negligence is remitted to the County Court for trial, subject to a stay for four months to allow the parties to engage in mediation.

The direct consequence is that the Appellant may now have his case considered on its merits. The court cautioned that the quantum of damages claimed is unrealistic and encouraged the parties to seek settlement through mediation to avoid further delays and costs. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the proper application of CPR 39.3 standards in the context of medical evidence and adjournment applications.