Page 1

Air India Charters Limited v Albany Handling Limited

1978 A. 1924
In Tee Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
On Appeal from the High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
20 February 1981

1981 WL 687301
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning ) Lord Justice Eveleigh and Lord Justice Fox
Friday, 20th February, 1981.

Representation

MR. J. BOUT. RS (instructed by Messrs. Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs
(Respondents).

MR. J. SEED (instructed by Messrs. Arturo Barone) appeared on behalf of the Defendants
(Appellants).

REVISED JUDGMENT

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS:

Air India Charters Limited brought an action for damages against Albany Handling Limited. As long ago
as 1973, at Heathrow Airport, Albany Handling dropped a spectrometer negligently, as a result of which
damage was done in the sum of £11,000 or £12,000. Air India came to a settlement with the owner of the
spectrometer: and then sought an indemnity against Albany Handling.
The action came on for trial before Mr. Justice Gibson on the 12th February last. Counsel for the plaintiffs
opened his case on liability and damages. He called two witnesses. He got into difficulty about proving
damage. At the end of the plaintiffs' evidence the judge intimated that he doubted whether the plaintiffs
had proved their case. Counsel for the plaintiffs asked for an adjournment for a few minutes. The judge
granted it. After five minutes, counsel for the plaintiffs came back and said, “I close my case” . Whereupon
counsel for the defendants - seeing the state of the evidence - said that he was not going to call any
evidence.
The plaintiffs' counsel then got up to address the court further. The judge was still very doubtful whether
the plaintiffs had made out a sufficient case. In view of the judge's doubts, counsel for the plaintiffs then
asked for a further adjournment. The judge asked both counsel for their views. Counsel for the
defendants said that it was not open to the judge to grant a further adjournment to the plaintiffs. He
submitted that counsel for the plaintiffs had made up his mind after the earlier adjournment of five
minutes. Counsel for the plaintiffs had closed his case: and that was the end of it. He should not be
allowed to re-open it.
I agree that many judges would in like case have refused a further adjournment. But the judge in this case
thought he would grant it. We do not know all the circumstances because we have not had all the material
 Page 2

before us. He thought that, if the defendants were compensated in costs, he would grant an adjournment.
He ordered the sum of £750 to be paid by way of costs wasted for the day because of the adjournment.
Now Mr. Speed is before us submitting very vigorously that the judge was wrong. I can understand his
feelings. He said that counsel for the plaintiffs made up his mind after five minutes, and then closed his
case. In the face of that decision, Mr. Speed decided not to call any evidence. He expected the judge to
give judgment then and there. Mr. Speed feels aggrieved that the judge did not take that course.
I am afraid the answer to it all is that the conduct of the trial is in the discretion of the judge. It was in the
discretion of the judge whether to give a ruling after the case had been closed: or whether to grant an
adjournment, as he did, in the circumstances. I am afraid in the circumstances we cannot grant Mr.
Speed's application for leave to appeal.
You shall have your costs, Mr. Bowers, as you were given notice to be here. The application is refused
with costs.
(Order: Application refused with costs)
Crown copyright

© 2014 Sweet & Maxwell