Dutton v Law Society

Where a party’s medical condition materially impairs the ability to present a serious case, the court may grant a further adjournment to secure a fair opportunity to participate. The court must balance that concern against the need for finality in litigation. An adjournment may be appropriate even where the medical evidence is limited, particularly where the underlying proceedings carry grave consequences. The indulgence should remain proportionate and does not justify open-ended delay. The court may therefore grant one final, time-limited adjournment and indicate that any further adjournment would require wholly new facts.

The claimant brought a statutory appeal against an order of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dated 20 February 2003, by which he had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors following serious findings of dishonesty. He appeared in person and renewed an application for an adjournment based on depression affecting his concentration, attention and ability to present his case. The court considered written and oral medical evidence and had to determine whether the appeal should be adjourned to allow a further opportunity for proper participation.

1. Adjournment granted. The appeal was adjourned for three months and directed to be relisted on the first open day after that period.
2. The medical basis for an adjournment was described as thin. Nevertheless, the court accepted that the claimant suffered from depression and appeared unable to present his case efficiently or do himself justice in person.
3. The court was required to balance the claimant’s ability to participate effectively against the need for finality. The gravity of the proceedings was material because the disciplinary decision, including findings of dishonesty and striking off, affected his professional future with exceptional seriousness.
4. In those circumstances, fairness required one further opportunity for the claimant to see whether he could present his case properly, potentially with legal assistance. The adjournment was limited to three months.
5. The court stated its firm view that any further adjournment would be wrong in principle unless wholly new facts emerged presenting an entirely different picture. Legal proceedings could not continue on an open-ended basis.

• Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: on 20 February 2003, ordered that the claimant be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the statutory appeal was adjourned for three months to allow a further opportunity for the claimant to present his case.