Transomas Limited & Anor v Kheri Trading Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2708 (Ch)
Anthony John Wright & Ors v Dominic Joseph Andrew Chappell & Ors
15 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2873 (Ch)
High Court
A man facing a trial was recently released from prison and diagnosed with cancer. The judge let him postpone *his* part of the trial, but the trial against the other people will continue. The judge also said the man still gets to defend himself, even if he was late filing paperwork because he was in jail.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Dominic Chappell applied to adjourn a trial against him for wrongful trading and misfeasance.
- •The trial had already begun, with opening statements and one witness's testimony completed.
- •Chappell's reasons for adjournment included imprisonment, lack of access to trial documents, probation appointments, and a recent prostate cancer diagnosis.
- •The Joint Liquidators opposed the adjournment, while other respondents suggested severing Chappell's claims.
- •The question of whether Chappell had served compliant Points of Defence was central to the application.
- •Chappell had faced previous delays in responding to court orders due to his imprisonment.
- •The court considered Chappell's conduct, medical condition, and the potential for an unfair trial if the adjournment was denied.
- •The court considered whether Chappell waived his right to participate in the trial by delayed actions.
Legal Principles
Principles governing eleventh-hour adjournment applications, considering parties' conduct, ability to overcome delays, potential for unfair trial, specific circumstances, and consequences for all parties.
Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd (No 2) (2009) 128 Con LR 91
Applications to adjourn on medical grounds; fairness is a fact-sensitive assessment, with a party's illness a highly material factor, requiring consideration of uncompensatable prejudice to others if adjournment is granted.
Bilta (UK) Ltd v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221
Scrutiny of medical evidence supporting adjournment applications; evidence must identify medical attendant, detail condition's impact on participation, provide prognosis, and demonstrate independence; court considers alternative accommodations.
Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 (QB)
Article 6 ECHR considerations in adjournment applications; the right to a fair hearing, including the ability to participate, must be balanced against potential prejudice to others; waiver of the right must be clear and unequivocal.
Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras v Antonov [2020] EWHC 3514
Duty to act promptly when objecting to a hearing; failure to do so may be considered waiver; lateness of application may be tactical.
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 9) [2013] 1 WLR 1845
Court's power to sever parts of proceedings under CPR Part 3.1(2)(e) if joinder causes inconvenience.
CPR Part 3.1
Outcomes
The application to adjourn was granted, but claims against Chappell were severed.
Chappell's recent release from prison, coupled with his medical condition, made it impractical for him to participate effectively in the ongoing trial. Severing the claims was deemed the 'least worst' option to minimize overall prejudice to all parties.
Chappell was not debarred from defending the claims.
The court interpreted the previous order not to require fully compliant Points of Defence, given Chappell's imprisonment and lack of representation. The court noted that failure to comply with pleading rules had its own remedies under CPR Part 16.5.
Similar Cases
Mark Wilson & Anor (as joint liquidators of Westcountrytruffles Limited) v Brian Bryan Frost & Anor
[2024] EWHC 573 (Ch)
Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors
[2024] EWHC 549 (Ch)
Knaresborough Investments Limited v Styles & Wood Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1356 (Comm)
Manolete Partners PLC v Nigel John Jones & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 236 (Ch)