Copyright Canary City, R (on the application of) v Thames Magistrates' Court

A decision to refuse an adjournment is reviewable on limited public-law grounds, including irrationality, irrelevant considerations and absence of an evidential basis. Where refusal would result in dismissal, the court must take particular care to avoid injustice. The applicant must establish that attendance is genuinely impossible. Medical evidence must be assessed in context, including its duration, prognosis, detail, currency and the practical effect of the condition. The court may also consider the state of preparation, the attendance of witnesses, the importance of the hearing, prejudice to others and any commercial advantage obtained by delay. A short and vague medical note does not require an adjournment where the surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate that the case is unprepared or lacks merit.

The claimant appealed to the Thames Magistrates' Court against revocation of its premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003. The appeal had previously been adjourned. On the relisted hearing date, the claimant sought a further, unspecified adjournment because its owner and principal witness was suffering from back pain. The claimant had served no bundle or witness statements, and none of its witnesses attended.

The District Judge refused the adjournment, dismissed the appeal in the absence of evidence, and awarded costs. The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the medical evidence had been wrongly rejected and that the refusal was unfair. The central issue was whether the District Judge had lawfully exercised his discretion.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The refusal of the adjournment and the consequential dismissal of the magistrates' court appeal were lawful.
2. The court accepted the general observations in Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1040. Review of an adjournment decision is limited. Relevant grounds include irrationality, reliance on irrelevant matters and reaching a conclusion without evidential support. Where refusal would cause proceedings to be dismissed, particular care is required. A litigant whose attendance is necessary for a fair trial will usually require an adjournment if genuinely unable to attend through no fault of his own, but the applicant bears the burden of proving that need.
3. The District Judge was entitled to assess the medical notes critically. They were brief, dated, lacked detail about the practical effect of the pain or medication, did not require bed rest or other treatment, and expired on or shortly before the hearing without an updated prognosis. The notes did not establish that attendance on the relevant hearing dates was impossible.
4. The medical evidence had to be considered with the wider circumstances. This was a second adjournment application; the claimant sought an unspecified lengthy delay; no bundle or witness statements had been served; no witnesses attended; and there was no satisfactory explanation for the lack of preparation. The District Judge was entitled to infer that the appeal was not being pursued efficiently and that it was unlikely to have merit.
5. The reasoning was cumulative rather than based on separate alternative grounds. The District Judge was entitled to treat the medical evidence, the lack of preparation and the absence of witnesses as mutually reinforcing parts of the overall circumstances. Unlike the tribunal in Teinaz, he did not substitute his own medical opinion for clear medical advice. He assessed whether the evidence justified the particular adjournment sought.

The claimant did not separately challenge dismissal of the appeal once the adjournment was refused. Costs were ordered against the claimant in the sums of £2,244.25 and £1,139.75. Leave to appeal was refused, although time for applying to the Court of Appeal was extended until 14 days after receipt of the approved transcript or 14 October, whichever was later.

The judgment describes the underlying appeal from the licensing committee to the Thames Magistrates' Court. The magistrates' court refused a further adjournment, dismissed the appeal and awarded costs. This judicial review claim was dismissed.