Imrene Radics v Regional Court of Pecs (Hungary)

Note: This judgment was produced and approved by the Judge, after using voice-recognition software during an ex tempore judgment. FORDHAM J: 1. The Court was expecting the Appellant to appear, in person, for this oral renewal of permission to appeal. An interpreter was known to be needed and had been scheduled. I was alerted, shortly before the hearing, to the fact that there were difficulties with the interpreter. That means that had the Appellant attended, I would inevitably have been granting an adjournment, to enable her to make her oral representations understood by me, and so she could understand what I was saying to her. In the event, the Appellant has not attended. I have seen that the Appellant’s personal email address was included in the Notice of Renewal Form filed (on 11.10.23) by her former solicitors. This Notice recorded that the Appellant maintained that she had an arguable appeal and would represent herself at the renewal hearing. I have seen that the Appellant’s given personal email address was then used when the Court emailed the Order for the solicitors to come off the record (31.10.23), but that email and Order did not give any date for this hearing. This hearing had not, at that stage, been fixed. Enquiries by my clerk just now have met with this response. It is thought that the personal email address for the Appellant was not in fact entered onto the system. That would mean that the notice of today’s hearing (issued on 3.11.23) would not have gone to the Appellant’s personal email address. In all these circumstances, I am going to adjourn this case to a new date to be fixed and notified. I express my gratitude to my clerk and all of the court staff, including the clerk to the Court, for their industry and assistance in seeking to establish what communications had taken place. 14.11.23