Attempting To Adjourn A Trial Late Can Be A Struggle

In the case of Manolete Partners PLC v Karim & Ors [2024] EWHC 2053 (Ch) the application to adjourn on the day of the trial was refused with it being a bit late in the day. It shows that attempting to adjourn a trial late can be a struggle.

It is a good case to look at for a number of reasons, including but not limited to Director Liability For Payments From A Company and the burden of proof, Director Abdication of Responsibility and also when seeking to apply to adjourn a case late, looking from the vantage point of how a court might consider such an application.

In this case, the applications submitted on the day of trial look not only optimistic but also conceivably capable of being considered bordering on hopeless given the judgment highlights below on points about the lateness of the application and failure to comply with a prior court order.

Judgment Highlights – Leaving It A Bit Late

(1) On 16 April 2024, Jawed wrote saying that he had been informed that a timetable hearing was scheduled to take place on that day and that “Unfortunately, due to financial constraints, I have been unable to secure legal representation for myself and [Basser] and [Fahim]”, that this had “made it exceedingly challenging to adequately prepare for the hearing and to manage the substantial workload associated with both the pre-trial preparations and the trial proceedings themselves”, and that “Given these circumstances, I am left with no choice but to represent myself at the trial. Additionally, I will also be responsible for executing the defence on behalf of [Basser] and [Fahim]”. Jawed went on to say that mental health issues, and other medical concerns, including high blood pressure and dizziness, meant that “I am unable to attend today’s hearing”; and he requested that the trial hearing could be scheduled in such a way as “to allow me time to recover”.

(2) I caused a reply to be sent to Jawed on 16 April 2024, explaining that (a) this was the day on which the start of the trial had been listed to take place, and that the trial had accordingly already started, at 10.30 am that day, and (b) Manolete’s lawyers had informed me that Jawed and all of the live Defendants were aware of this, both from an email that Manolete’s solicitors sent to Mariam on 15 April 2024 and copied to Jawed, Basser, and Fahim and because those solicitors had forwarded to the live Defendants the relevant exchange with Chancery Listing.

(3) On 17 April 2024, Jawed wrote repeating much of the same text and asking that “the hearing be adjourned to allow me the necessary time to recuperate and address my health concerns appropriately”. On the same day I replied as follows:

“The Judge notes that an Order was made in this case on 13 November 2023 by Master Pester, which stipulated at paragraph 3 the medical evidence which would be required ‘[i]f there is to be any further application for any further adjournment of the trial or a stay of the proceedings on the grounds of any of the Defendant’s ill health’. The Judge has been informed that the First Defendant was sent an electronic version of the trial bundle by email dated 22 March 2024 (with later iterations being sent thereafter) and the relevant Order is at pages 241-243 of that bundle. The letter from the First Defendant does not comply with that stipulation, and in any event provides an insufficient basis for an adjournment (of uncertain duration) of this trial which has been fixed to be tried within the current trial window for some time and is currently in progress. The application for an adjournment is therefore refused.”(4) On 18 April 2024 Jawed renewed his application for an adjournment. He acknowledged the effect of the Order of Master Pester dated 13 November 2023, and “the importance of adhering to procedural requirements” but nevertheless “implore[d] the court to reconsider the exceptional recent challenges posed by my health condition”. He went on to provide details of those challenges, to provide some details of the medical help that he had been receiving, and to provide a letter from NHS Hounslow IAPT dated 18 January 2024 which “has brought to light significant health concerns that have arisen since my previous submission on 13 November 2023” and “[which] have rendered me medically unfit to participate in the court hearing as scheduled”. He wrote that “Denying this request [i.e. for a short adjournment] not only jeopardizes my fundamental right to a fair trial but also exacerbates the existing strain on my health”, foreshadowed the production of further medical evidence, made a number of points on the merits of Manolete’s claims, and proposed “As an alternative, if an adjournment is not awarded, I am happy to respond in writing to their submission, provided I am given the transcript. I believe I am capable of responding in writing, as I have good days and bad days due to my mental health, but it also takes time”. The NHS letter dated 18 January 2024 provided in support of that application was signed by a Trainee Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner, who concluded, on the basis of a single telephone appointment with Jawed, that he should undertake cognitive behavioural therapy based guided self-help, and informed him that he would be contacted as soon as a treatment appointment became available, that “Guided self-help sessions typically last for 30 minutes and are usually fortnightly” and that “Individuals are generally offered 4-6 sessions depending on their needs”. Jawed provided no information as to what had occurred between the date of this letter and the start of the trial.

(5) On 18 April 2024 I replied as follows:

“The Judge considers that the further material deployed in support of the renewed request for an adjournment of the trial (which is currently in progress) (1) still fails to  comply with the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Order of Master Pester dated 13 November 2023 and (2) in any event, does not disclose sufficient grounds to warrant an adjournment, bearing in mind (among other things) that the application (a) is made so late in the day, without any or any sufficient explanation as to why it was not or could not have been made sooner, and (b) is not supported by sufficient cogent medical evidence from an ostensibly reliable third party/medical source. Any further application by the First Defendant for an adjournment of the trial must be pursued by way of an appeal against the Judge’s refusal. The Judge also notes that reference is made to materials that are said to support the case of the First to Third Defendants. The Judge confirms that he will consider these materials when ruling on the trial outcome.”

(6) My reason for ruling that any further application for an adjournment should be made by way of appeal against my refusal of the first two applications was that I did not consider that it could be right that Jawed could make a series of applications relying on different or additional evidence on each occasion, when all that evidence was, or should have been, available to be deployed all along.