UCB Bank Plc v Hedworth

An appellate court may adjourn where, having regard to the issues and the parties’ representation, it is unrealistic to proceed without risking fragmented hearings or substantial further delay. The court must balance the appellant’s practical ability to present the appeal against prejudice to the respondent from delay. Where an adjournment is granted after repeated delays, the court may order expedition and reserve further applications to the constitution familiar with the case.

Mrs Gillian Hedworth appealed against a possession order made by Mr Recorder Narayan in the Carlisle County Court on 1 February 2002. The appeal had already been affected by repeated difficulties concerning her legal representation. Her former solicitors had come off the record, and a prospective firm was unwilling to act within the funding available from the Legal Services Commission.

Mrs Hedworth sought a further adjournment so that she could obtain alternative representation. The respondent bank opposed the application, relying on the history of delay and the prejudice caused by continuing negative equity. It also relied on technical alternative grounds in its Respondent’s Notice, including issues concerning undue influence, misrepresentation and subrogation. The central question was whether the appeal should proceed or be adjourned.

Lord Justice Mummery delivered the judgment. Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Keene agreed.

1. The court allowed the application for an adjournment. It was not realistic to proceed with the appeal immediately because Mrs Hedworth was unable to deal effectively in person with both her primary ground of appeal and the technical matters in the Respondent’s Notice.
2. Proceeding immediately created a significant risk that the appeal would have to be heard in two stages. If the primary ground succeeded, a further adjournment would probably be required to enable Mrs Hedworth to obtain representation for the respondent’s alternative grounds. Relisting before the same constitution could itself cause many months of delay.
3. The history of adjournments and the prejudice to the respondent were important considerations, but they did not make an immediate hearing practicable. The balance favoured granting the adjournment sought.
4. The appeal hearing was ordered to be expedited. The court reserved future questions of adjournment to its members, who were familiar with the background and issues. Expedition was to be the priority in order to limit further prejudice to the respondent.

The order was: application allowed as above. The merits of the possession appeal were not determined.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 18 June 2003, allowed the application for an adjournment, directed that the appeal be expedited and reserved further adjournment applications. [2003] EWCA Civ 945
• Carlisle County Court — Mr Recorder Narayan made a possession order on 1 February 2002. The citation is not stated in the judgment.