Alliotts (a firm) v Reynard

An appellate court should not interfere with a case-management decision refusing an adjournment where the judge exercised discretion within the range open to him. This applies where the stated reason is loss of representation through public funding and an adjournment would not cure that problem. The age of the proceedings and substantial costs already incurred may properly weigh against further delay. A litigant in person should receive all assistance that it is proper for the judge to give, but this does not require postponement of a stale trial.

Alliotts (a firm) v Reynard concerned a claim for unpaid accountancy fees and a negligence counterclaim arising from advice allegedly given before a loan and bank guarantees. The defendant, previously publicly funded and legally represented, sought an adjournment of an imminent trial after his funding was discharged and replacement funding was not obtained. The Queen’s Bench Division refused the adjournment and gave final trial directions. Acting in person, the defendant sought permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the case-management discretion had been exercised in a manner open to the judge.

Application refused. Lord Justice Dyson held that the defendant had no realistic basis for challenging the refusal of an adjournment.

1. The decision whether to adjourn was discretionary. It was impossible to say that the judge had exercised that discretion in a way that was not open to him.
2. The principal basis for the adjournment was the defendant’s likely lack of representation because of difficulties with public funding. Those difficulties had been resolved adversely to him, and it was clear that he would remain unrepresented even if the trial were adjourned.
3. The judge was entitled to take account of the age of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred in preparing the case. The proceedings had begun in 1996 and approximately £100,000 had been spent.
4. The court expressed sympathy for the defendant but concluded that he would have to conduct the trial as best he could. The trial judge was expected to give him all assistance that it was proper to give to a litigant in person.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 11 July 2001, Lord Justice Dyson refused the application for permission to appeal: [2001] EWCA Civ 1105.
• Queen’s Bench Division: On 27 June 2001, His Honour Judge Playford QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, gave final trial directions and refused the defendant’s application to adjourn the trial.