Key Facts
- •Disclosure guidance/directions hearings in two actions before Master McQuail.
- •Claimant: Barclays Bank plc seeking return of wrongly taken funds.
- •Defendants: Individuals (Scott Dylan, Gareth Michael Dylan, Sally Ann Glover, David Antrobus) and companies (Old3 Limited, Jack Mason, Old3 Limited).
- •Freezing orders obtained against individual defendants and companies.
- •Previous hearing with Deputy Master Henderson in June 2023, resulting in directions for a January 2025 trial.
- •Contempt proceedings against Scott Dylan, David Antrobus, and Jack Mason for breaching freezing injunctions.
- •Adjournment of contempt proceedings due to Scott Dylan's mental fitness.
- •Application to adjourn the disclosure hearing due to Jack Mason's appendectomy and Scott Dylan's mental health.
- •Insufficient medical evidence provided to support the adjournment application.
- •Claimant sought extended disclosure.
- •Defendants argued against inclusion of 'third purported restructure' in disclosure.
- •Defendants raised concerns about self-incrimination and timing of disclosure relative to contempt proceedings.
Legal Principles
Standard for adjourning a hearing due to a party's ill health, requiring unchallenged medical evidence of unfitness, identification of the medical practitioner, details of their familiarity with the condition, identification of features preventing participation, and a reasoned prognosis.
GMC v Hayat [2018] EWCA Civ 2796
Disclosure is a fundamental part of civil litigation; parties have obligations to cooperate and preserve documents (Practice Direction 57AD).
Practice Direction 57AD
In cases where a litigant needs to be present and is unable, an adjournment will usually be granted (Bowden v Homerton University Hospital [2012] EWCA Civ 245; Solanki v Intercity Telecom [2018] EWCA Civ 101).
Bowden v Homerton University Hospital [2012] EWCA Civ 245; Solanki v Intercity Telecom [2018] EWCA Civ 101
Outcomes
Application to adjourn the disclosure hearing refused.
Insufficient medical evidence to support the adjournment application; defendants' ability to engage in proceedings despite health issues; history of non-cooperation with disclosure process; the existing evidence considered and rejected by Meade J in the context of the contempt proceedings.
Order for extended disclosure granted.
Disclosure is fundamental to civil litigation; 'third purported restructure' is a relevant issue and should be included in disclosure; concerns about self-incrimination are addressed by Practice Direction 57AD.
Defendants ordered to pay 30% of claimant's costs for the hearing.
Defendants' lack of cooperation with the disclosure process; failure to accept a pragmatic offer to proceed; difficulty in separating adjournment costs from disclosure costs.
Claimant's costs summarily assessed at £58,000; defendants jointly and severally liable for 30% (£17,400).
Complexity of the case and difficulties with litigants in person.