Reid (Formerly Trading As Reid Minty) v Edwards & Ors

An adjournment will not be granted merely because a litigant has suffered a serious injury. The court must assess, on the available medical evidence, whether preparation for trial or participation in it would be unfair or impracticable, while applying the overriding objective.

Concurrent trials require a sufficient overlap of issues or evidence to justify the burden imposed on parties who would otherwise attend only one trial. Common background, witnesses, credibility points and the possibility of inconsistent findings may be insufficient where the actions concern materially different disputes. A late application which threatens an existing trial date requires a strong case and a satisfactory, frank explanation for the delay.

The claimants brought two related actions arising from the sale and subsequent operation of a legal costs business. The first action alleged breach of the sale agreement by Capita Group plc. The second alleged breaches of duty and employment obligations by former colleagues, together with inducement and related claims against corporate defendants involved in ProLegal.

The claimants applied to adjourn the imminent trial of the first action because the first claimant had suffered a serious ankle injury. They also sought to have both actions tried concurrently, which would have required vacating the existing trial date. The defendants opposed both applications. The issues were whether the medical evidence justified an adjournment and whether the overlap, litigation history and timing justified concurrent trials.

1. Medical adjournment. The court declined to adjourn the January 2009 trial. The relevant question was the claimant’s likely ability to prepare and participate at the future trial, rather than his immediate incapacity after the accident. Trial preparation was essentially sedentary and could be undertaken despite restricted mobility. The evidence did not establish that the future medication regime would impair concentration to an unfair degree.
2. The anticipated physiotherapy regime was not shown to require two or three hours each day during the trial. The more persuasive specialist evidence indicated a substantially lesser regime, capable of being accommodated without materially interfering with attendance. Physical discomfort and the possible need for wheelchair facilities did not make participation unfair. The court acknowledged that changed circumstances might justify a later application.
3. Concurrent trials. The two actions shared factual background and some witnesses, but concerned different central issues. The first concerned the operation of the costs business under the sale agreement. The second concerned alleged breaches relating to the establishment and operation of ProLegal. References to common background, credibility and evidential matters did not establish a sufficient overlap of issues. The burden on defendants who would have to attend and fund substantial parts of an unrelated trial outweighed the advantages of concurrency.
4. The court accepted that preserving an existing trial date is an important consideration, particularly after an earlier adjournment, but it is not an automatic starting point. Applying the approach in Borealis AB v Stargas Ltd [2002] EWCA 757, a late application capable of disrupting a trial requires a strong case and a proper, frank explanation for the delay. The claimant had known enough to commence the second action many months earlier and had initially chosen to pursue it separately. The concurrency application was therefore belated and inadequately explained.
5. Both the concurrency application and the application to adjourn the trial date were dismissed.