Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors
20 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 881 (Ch)
High Court
A bank sued several people and companies for stolen money. The defendants asked to delay a hearing about providing evidence because of illness. The judge refused, saying they hadn't provided enough proof of illness and hadn't cooperated in the case. The judge ordered them to share more evidence and to pay part of the bank's legal costs.
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.
Similar Cases
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)
WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
SFL Ace 2 Company Inc. v DCW Management Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3074 (Comm)
Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Kei Kin Hung & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm)