Scottish Equitable Plc v Thompson & Anor

When a litigant seeks a substantial adjournment to obtain legal representation, the court must decide what outcome best serves the interests of justice. It should balance the interests of the unrepresented party with those of the opposing party, other litigants and the public. Relevant considerations include the age of the proceedings, the likely length of the adjournment, whether the applicant knew of the problem and failed to notify the court, the apparent strength of the case, and the risk of further unnecessary costs. An adjournment may properly be refused where further delay would not serve a useful purpose.

Scottish Equitable Plc appealed against judgments of His Honour Judge Cowell in the West Central London County Court, which had favoured John Anthony Thompson and Susan Joan Pearson in a money claim. At the hearing, Mr Thompson appeared in person after his solicitors had come off the record. He sought an adjournment for some months so that he could obtain new representation, explaining that he could not presently afford solicitors.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the application should be granted despite the case having been listed for the whole day, the proceedings having begun in 1999, the likely prejudice to the appellant and other litigants, and the apparent strength of the appellant’s legal case.

1. Application refused. The court dismissed the application to adjourn and ordered that the matter be resolved that day.
2. In determining an adjournment application, the court must consider the interests of the parties and the public interest. The relevant assessment includes the effect on other litigants if the hearing is vacated, the prejudice caused to the opposing party by further delay, and the age of the proceedings.
3. The court may also consider whether the applicant knew that representation was unlikely but failed to notify the court, the length of the adjournment sought, the applicant’s ability to obtain representation, and the apparent strength of the opposing case. The possibility that an adjournment would impose further and potentially unnecessary costs is relevant.
4. Here, the dispute had already continued for many years and the proceedings had been commenced in 1999. Mr Thompson had apparently known that he would not be represented, had not notified the court, sought an adjournment for several months and could not presently instruct solicitors. The court considered that the appellant had a strong case on the legal point, referring to Bristol and West v Bartlett. In those circumstances, postponement was not in the interests of justice.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the respondents’ application to adjourn the appeal and directed that the matter proceed that day. The substantive appeal was not determined in the supplied judgment.
• West Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Cowell had given judgment in favour of John Anthony Thompson and Susan Joan Pearson in Scottish Equitable Plc’s money claim. The citation of that decision is not stated in the judgment.