Villatte v 38 Cleveland Square Management Ltd

On an application to adjourn an appeal, the court must balance fairness and equality between the parties against the wider interests of justice, including the proper administration of the court. The age of the proceedings and delay already suffered by the other side are relevant. Difficulty in securing replacement counsel will not necessarily justify an adjournment where solicitor support, written arguments and straightforward issues reduce the risk of unfairness. The court may refuse an adjournment where the prejudice from appearing in person is outweighed by the need to bring the matter to a fair and timely conclusion.

This was an appeal from the Lands Tribunal. The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal and of the renewal of applications for permission to appeal other parts of the Tribunal’s order. Permission to appeal on a company law point had previously been granted. The appellant relied on personal difficulties and difficulties in securing counsel after the withdrawal of pro bono representation. The respondent opposed further delay. The central issue was whether an adjournment was required in the interests of justice.

Lord Justice Ward gave the reasons for the court. Lord Justices Mummery and Jonathan Parker agreed.

1. Balancing exercise. An adjournment application must be decided fairly and equally between the parties. The court must balance the interests of the applicant and the respondent against the overall requirements of justice. That wider assessment includes giving proper weight to the administration of the court.
2. Application of the factors. The matter had been pending for a considerable period, and the appellant’s notice of appeal had itself been out of time. The respondents had been waiting for a resolution of the issues. Although the court sympathised with the appellant’s need to make arrangements for his elderly and ill parents, he had throughout had the assistance of solicitors. The difficulties with counsel had also arisen sufficiently before the hearing for steps to be taken.
3. The court had the benefit of skeleton arguments prepared by earlier counsel. The issues were comparatively simple, and the appellant remained free to submit material prepared by replacement counsel. In those circumstances, any prejudice caused by requiring the appellant to appear in person did not outweigh the general requirements of justice.
4. The application to adjourn was refused. The order was made unanimously.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the application to adjourn the appeal and related renewal applications.
• Lands Tribunal: The appeal was brought from the Tribunal, but its decision and citation are not stated in the judgment.