Brampton v Rust & Anor

An adjournment of a forthcoming trial will ordinarily require cogent reasons, particularly where the application is made at the last minute. The court should assess the delay in applying, the underlying merits and the overall prejudice to each party. A party’s failure to address funding or preparation difficulties promptly is relevant, but does not automatically defeat the application. The court must exercise its discretion fairly in the unusual circumstances of the case, including the practical consequences for representation and trial fairness. An adjournment may be granted on terms, including payment of the opposing party’s costs.

The defendants applied to adjourn a seven-day civil trial concerning alleged fraudulent investment misrepresentations. They relied principally on difficulties in funding legal representation and preparing the case, said to result from a freezing order and restrictions affecting the first defendant’s assets.

The application was made shortly before trial. The claimant opposed it, pointing to the defendants’ delay, the availability of mechanisms for funding legal advice under the freezing order, and earlier proposals concerning the sale of assets. The court considered whether the defendants’ preparation, the delay, and the prejudice to both parties justified postponing the trial.

1. Adjournment principles. Applications to adjourn should be granted only for the most cogent reasons. A last-minute application engages considerations analogous to those under CPR 3.9, including the delay in making the application, the underlying merits and the overall prejudice.
2. Delay and responsibility. The defendants’ funding difficulties should have been identified and addressed months earlier. Their failure to respond to proposals for realising assets and funding legal representation made the application unjustifiably late and was attributable to the defendants or their solicitors.
3. Prejudice. The claimant would suffer delay in recovering money and continued exposure under his cross-undertakings, but interest and costs could compensate those consequences. A three-month delay would cause little evidential prejudice because interview transcripts existed and the relevant period was short. By contrast, refusal risked leaving the defendants unrepresented or inadequately prepared in a complex Queen’s Bench action.
4. Overall discretion. The court took account of the defendants’ lack of preparation, but also the human consequences of the first defendant’s recent criminal proceedings and the understandable failure to prioritise the civil claim during that period. In the unusual circumstances, fairness required the trial to be adjourned.
5. The application was granted and the trial was to be refixed in a window commencing on 14 April 2008. The order was conditional on the defendants paying the claimant’s costs of the adjournment, summarily assessed and payable promptly. No order was made varying the freezing injunction or property restrictions.