Gibbons v South West Services Limited

A refusal to adjourn proceedings is ordinarily a matter within the trial judge’s discretion. The Court of Appeal will be slow to interfere, especially where the judge is managing group litigation. An adjournment may properly be refused where the proposed delay would serve no useful purpose, including where further legal aid or alternative funding is unlikely and the applicant has no realistic means of advancing the case.

The applicant was one of several claimants in group litigation arising from pollution at the Lowermoor Treatment Works. Most claims had settled, but the applicant’s claim remained listed for trial. After his legal aid was discharged and his solicitors came off the record, he appeared in person without witnesses and sought an adjournment to pursue further legal aid or alternative funding.

Wright J refused the adjournment. The applicant sought leave to appeal, raising the question whether the refusal disclosed an arguable error in the exercise of the judge’s discretion.

1. Application dismissed. The refusal of an adjournment was a judicial act falling prima facie within the trial judge’s discretion. The Court of Appeal therefore approached the decision with restraint.
2. That restraint was particularly appropriate because Wright J was the assigned judge responsible for managing the group litigation and had dealt with the matter throughout its subsequent hearings.
3. The judge was entitled to take account of the applicant’s procedural history. He had received advice from two complete legal teams and had consistently rejected that advice. He had not provided a sensible reason why an adjournment would advance the proceedings.
4. The judge was also entitled to conclude that a further application for legal aid was unlikely to succeed and that alternative funding was unlikely to be obtained. In those circumstances, postponing the trial would have served no useful purpose.
5. The Court of Appeal could identify no arguable ground on which the exercise of discretion was flawed. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused and the application was dismissed.

• High Court: Wright J refused the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the trial.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the application for leave to appeal, the court found no arguable error in the exercise of discretion and dismissed the application: [1994] EWCA Civ 24.