Reed v Blundell & Anor

Where an appeal depends entirely on fresh evidence from a particular witness, the court may refuse an adjournment if the witness’s late reluctance, unexplained circumstances and the surrounding evidence make it unlikely that a further hearing would produce credible testimony. The court must also consider the fairness and practical burden imposed on the opposing party, particularly where the adjournment would prolong serious allegations and litigation. If the proposed evidence cannot be called and the appellant accepts that the appeal cannot proceed, the appeal may be dismissed.

Reed v Blundell & Anor was an appeal from Lincoln County Court concerning grievous injury sustained while repairing a roof. Permission to appeal had been granted on the basis of proposed fresh evidence from Mr Pointon, whose evidence was said to support allegations that Mr Blundell had bribed a trial witness and suborned another prospective witness.

The Court of Appeal had directed Mr Pointon to attend for cross-examination. On the day of the appeal he did not attend. The appellant sought a general adjournment, stating that Mr Pointon remained willing to give his evidence subject to protection from contact with the appellant and his son. The central issue was whether the appeal should be adjourned to enable the proposed fresh evidence to be called.

1. Adjournment refused. The court refused the appellant’s application for a general adjournment. Mr Pointon’s absence was not caused by illness or another emergency. He had become unwilling to attend after contact with the appellant, had gone to ground despite promising to call back, and his concern remained unexplained.
2. The appeal depended entirely on the proposed fresh evidence. Its essential, and possibly only, point was Mr Pointon’s credibility. In those circumstances, the court considered that even if he later attended, the circumstances surrounding his reluctance would make his evidence unlikely to carry credibility. A further adjournment was therefore unlikely to achieve a fair or effective hearing.
3. The court also took account of the position of the respondents. The allegations involved serious matters concerning bribery and subornation of witnesses. Mr Blundell was seriously ill and expected to undergo a major operation. In the circumstances, continuing the appeal by adjournment would be extremely unfair and oppressive to him.
4. Mr Urquart accepted that, without Mr Pointon, the appeal could not proceed and would have to be withdrawn. The formal order was that the appeal be dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from Lincoln County Court, the court refused an adjournment required to call proposed fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal: [2008] EWCA Civ 270.