Tinkler & Anor v Elliott

The vacation of a fixed trial date is a serious case-management step. It may cause prejudice and requires proper justification under the overriding objective. Where the parties have adequate notice of the case and the matter is ready for trial, a directions concern or potential need for further disclosure does not, without more, justify vacating the fixture. Further disclosure should be pursued promptly and should not automatically delay the trial. A possible need for legal representation may justify a later change of date or venue only on firm evidence and without unnecessary delay.

The appellants were pursuing a committal application against the respondent for alleged breach of a permanent injunction. A trial had been fixed for 27 July 2011. On 27 June, after the respondent appeared unexpectedly before HHJ Holman, the judge converted the fixture into a directions hearing, required a further affidavit and bundle, and permitted applications for third-party disclosure.

The appellants appealed, contending that the trial date should be restored. The central issue was whether the judge had sufficient justification, having regard to the preparation already completed, to vacate the fixed committal trial.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The order converting the 27 July 2011 trial into a directions hearing was quashed. The fixture was restored as the effective trial date for the committal application.
2. There was no justification for vacating the trial. The appellants’ case had been twice amended to identify the documents relied upon, and the relevant police and Civil Aviation Authority documents had been served on the respondent. He was therefore sufficiently informed of the case he had to meet.
3. Fixing a trial date is an important case-management decision. Vacating it is also important because it may cause prejudice to a party. The order was inconsistent with the overriding objective and with the recent decision fixing the trial.
4. The respondent’s wish for further disclosure did not justify postponement. Any application to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Serious Fraud Office or the police could be made promptly and was not to delay the trial.
5. The possibility of legal representation was relevant but did not warrant an indefinite postponement. A different date or venue could be considered by the trial court, or agreed by the appellants, if supported by firm evidence that representation was genuinely available only on different terms.
6. Permission for third-party disclosure remained available, subject to prompt action. The application for permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed to the stated extent.

• Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry: HHJ Holman ordered that the fixed committal trial be treated as a directions hearing, required a further affidavit and bundle, and permitted third-party disclosure applications.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed in part and the order vacating the trial date was quashed. The 27 July 2011 fixture was restored, subject to the possibility of a venue or date change supported by firm evidence.