High Court Denies Adjournment in Masadur Rahman v Dewan Raisal Hassan Case, Emphasizing Need for Detailed Evidence and Efficient Administration of Justice

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3004 (Ch)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the recent judgment of Masadur Rahman v Dewan Raisal Hassan & Ors [2023] EWHC 3004 (Ch), the High Court examined an application for an adjournment of a seven-day trial. The assigned trial judge, HHJ Paul Matthews, refused the application and provided a comprehensive rationale, which is instructive for legal professionals regarding adjournment requests and the criteria courts consider.

Key Facts

The claimant, Masadur Rahman, sought adjournment of the trial on three grounds: non-compliance by the defendant’s solicitors with court guidance and previous court order on bundle preparation, poor health of his wife coinciding with the trial dates, and the deaths of close relatives in Bangladesh. The defendant’s executors of a will and beneficiaries opposed the adjournment. HHJ Matthews assessed these grounds against established legal principles relating to the adjournment of trials and the overriding objectives of civil justice.

The case touches upon several legal principles central to applications for an adjournment:

  1. Overriding Objective: In consonance with Boyd & Hutchinson v Foenander [2003] EWCA Civ 1516, the court emphasized the need to deal with cases saving expense and allocating fair resources.

  2. Factors for Consideration: The court considered the factors laid out by Coulson J in Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd (No 2) [2009] and Elliott Group Ltd v GECC UK [2010], such as the parties’ conduct, the extent to which a fair trial may be jeopardized, the consequences of the delays, and illness of a critical witness.

  3. Medical Issues Guidance: Following Bilta (UK) Ltd v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221, the assessment of fairness in a trial due to medical issues is a fact-sensitive judgment and not a mere checklist application.

  4. Need for Medical Evidence: According to Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012], medical evidence should be detailed and provide an independent opinion for the court to weigh its significance in the application.

  5. Allocation of Resources for Trial Preparation: Master Kaye’s order regarding the preparation of the trial bundle was interpreted, emphasizing the responsibilities allocated to the claimant and the defendants.

Outcomes

HHJ Matthews dismissed the application for adjournment:

  1. First Ground – Compliance with trial preparation orders: The judge clarified that the burden of preparing the trial bundle index remained with the claimant and that the defendants’ late delivery of the trial bundle did not justify adjournment.

  2. Second Ground – Health of the claimant’s wife: The lack of detailed medical evidence and the absence of efforts to rearrange the conflicting appointment or to find someone else to assist the wife led to rejecting this ground.

  3. Third Ground – Deaths of close relatives: Insufficient detail regarding the impact of the relatives’ deaths and the direct effect on the claimant’s preparation for the trial meant this ground failed.

The judge also considered the effects of adjournment, including wasted costs, the delay in estate administration, and the consequences for other court users.

Conclusion

In Masadur Rahman v Dewan Raisal Hassan & Ors, the High Court demonstrates the importance of detailed supporting evidence for an adjournment claim and reaffirms the principle that the courts must balance the needs of individual litigants against the overriding objective of the civil justice system. The necessity for the timely and efficient administration of justice underpins the refusal, highlighting that a fair trial could be conducted despite the claimant’s cited challenges. This case underscores for UK legal professionals the high threshold that must be met to justify a trial adjournment once the wheels of justice are already in motion.