Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors
[2024] EWHC 549 (Ch)
Transomas Limited & Anor v Kheri Trading Limited & Anor
27 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2708 (Ch)
High Court
A family was fighting over a hotel sale. One side asked to delay the court case, but the judge said no because they hadn't given good reasons and delaying would be unfair to the other side. The delay request was filed late, but the judge let that slide.
Key Facts
- •Transomas Limited and Transomas Investments Limited (Claimants) applied to adjourn a 12-day trial scheduled to begin on November 6, 2023.
- •The Claimants are represented by Ms. Jagjit Kaur, their sole director, after their solicitors withdrew shortly before the PTR on September 28, 2023.
- •The case involves a family dispute over the sale of a hotel, with allegations of dishonest deception and misrepresentation against the Respondents.
- •The Claimants' application to adjourn was filed late, resulting in a need for relief from sanctions.
- •The Claimants raised various grounds for adjournment, including inadequate disclosure, a desire to consolidate with ongoing proceedings in other jurisdictions, and allegations of malicious prosecution.
- •The Respondents opposed the adjournment, highlighting the significant costs and prejudice they would suffer.
- •The Claimants' financial position indicates significant assets, suggesting they could afford legal representation.
Legal Principles
Discretion to adjourn a hearing in accordance with the overriding objective.
CPR 3.1(2)(b)
Trials are rarely adjourned once fixed; applications should be made as soon as possible after a change of circumstances.
Chancery Guide paragraph 12.28
Principles on adjournment applications, considering parties' conduct, consequences of delays, potential prejudice to a fair trial, and consequences for all parties and the court.
Fitzroy Robinson v Mentmore Towers No 2 [2009] EWHC 3070 (TCC); Elliott Group Ltd v GECC UK & Ors [2010] EWHC 409 (TCC)
Relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9.
CPR 3.9; Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Outcomes
Relief from sanctions granted for the late filing of the adjournment application.
The breach was not serious, and the defendants were not prejudiced.
Application to adjourn the trial refused.
The claimants failed to demonstrate a genuine change of circumstances justifying an adjournment. Their arguments regarding disclosure, consolidation, and malicious prosecution were deemed insufficient.
Unless order made regarding further information requested by the defendants.
The information sought was discrete and straightforward, and the claimants had sufficient time to provide it.
Trial to commence on November 13, 2023.
To balance the needs of all parties and the court's resources, given the proximity to the original trial date.
Similar Cases
Masadur Rahman v Dewan Raisal Hassan & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3004 (Ch)
Anthony John Wright & Ors v Dominic Joseph Andrew Chappell & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2873 (Ch)
Alexander Kuznetsov v War Group Ltd & Anor
[2024] EWHC 311 (KB)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)