Stein v Stein

Genuine ill-health does not give a litigant an indefinite right to adjourn civil proceedings. The court must balance the applicant’s condition against the interests of other parties and the need for finality and orderly administration of justice. Where proceedings have been substantially delayed, repeated non-attendance has occurred, and further attendance could not affect the result, the court may proceed in the person’s absence. Sympathy for the personal consequences of an order cannot replace legal assessment. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no substance.

The dispute arose from the unfinished administration of an estate. The applicant continued to occupy the former family home, while her brother, the executor, sought to market and sell it.

Jacob J, sitting in the Chancery Division, refused an adjournment sought on medical grounds, made an order regulating access for marketing, and later dismissed the applicant’s application to set aside that order. He also ordered her to give possession by 5 August 2002, subject to agreement.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against both orders and applied to adjourn the Court of Appeal hearing because of her ill-health. The central issues were whether the hearing should be postponed and whether the proposed appeals disclosed any substance.

1. Adjournment. Lord Justice Simon Brown refused to adjourn the applications and proceeded in the applicant’s absence. The court had to consider not only the applicant’s genuine medical difficulties, but also the interests of those concerned in completing the administration of the estate and the need to prevent further obstruction of the proceedings.
2. The history of prolonged delay, repeated non-attendance and repeated applications for adjournment was material. A litigant in person cannot rely on ill-health to postpone legal proceedings indefinitely where the court is satisfied that further attendance or argument would not add anything capable of changing the result.
3. Merits. The proposed grounds alleged that Jacob J had insufficiently considered the earlier consent order, the applicant’s submissions and her ill-health. They also questioned the urgency of the sale and the respondent’s ability to obtain the best price. The Court of Appeal found no substance in those grounds and considered that clarity and finality were required.
4. Sympathy for a person required to leave a long-occupied family home, even where that person is unwell, could not determine the applications. The applications were refused and dismissed. Copies of the transcribed judgment were to be sent to both parties at public expense.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 1609, Lord Justice Simon Brown refused the applications, including the application to adjourn and the applications for permission to appeal.
2. High Court (Chancery Division): Jacob J refused an adjournment, made orders regulating access to the property, dismissed the application to set aside the earlier order, and ordered possession by 5 August 2002.