Raja v Van Hoogstraten

An adjournment should be refused where the applicant has deliberately delayed preparation, could reasonably have obtained representation earlier, and further delay would cause serious prejudice to the opposing parties. The court must balance the applicant’s need for preparation against the efficient and fair resolution of the proceedings, the prejudice caused by delay, wasted costs, counsel’s availability and the likelihood of recovery of those costs. A late decision to instruct lawyers does not, without more, justify postponing a fixed trial date. An adjournment may nevertheless be considered where newly instructed representatives demonstrate that a short, defined period is genuinely necessary for preparation.

Four connected actions concerned claims arising from the death of Mohammed Sabir Raja. The court had directed that a preliminary issue—whether Nicholas van Hoogstraten was party to the killing—should be tried first. The trial was due to begin on 21 November 2005.

Mr van Hoogstraten, acting in person after dismissing his legal representatives, applied for a further adjournment. He relied on the proposed inclusion of a fraud issue, alleged non-disclosure by the Crown Prosecution Service, developments concerning the convictions of other defendants, and his intention to instruct solicitors and counsel. The central issue was whether the trial should be delayed in the interests of fair preparation.

1. Application refused. The trial date of 21 November 2005 was maintained, subject to a possible application by newly instructed legal representatives for a one-week adjournment to 28 November.
2. The fraud issue did not justify an adjournment. The order directing the preliminary issue had not been appealed, fraud was not part of that issue, and determining fraud before deciding whether Mr van Hoogstraten could defend the Chancery Action was unjustified. The issue would also require substantial preparation and expert evidence.
3. Alleged non-disclosure by the Crown Prosecution Service did not require an adjournment. Mr van Hoogstraten could apply on notice for relevant documents, and any later refusal to cooperate could be addressed by a further application.
4. Developments concerning the convictions of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke did not alter the position. Earlier attempts to challenge those convictions in the preliminary proceedings had been rejected by the court and the Court of Appeal.
5. In deciding whether to adjourn for legal representation, the court considered the deliberate decision to act in person, the repeated failure to seek variation or discharge of the freezing order, the availability of funds or court-authorised expenditure, the prejudice and wasted costs to the claimants, counsel’s limited availability, and the remaining time for preparation. The balance of justice required the hearing to proceed.
6. The court would consider a short adjournment only if legal representatives were instructed and demonstrated that an additional week was necessary for preparation.

The judgment records that the four actions had been case-managed together and that an earlier ruling concerning the scope of the preliminary issue had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This judgment determined the subsequent application to adjourn the fixed trial.