Bonhams 1793 Limited & Anor v Al-Thani & Anor

When deciding whether to adjourn an application, the court must deal with the case justly by balancing prejudice to all parties. A defendant’s late or inadequate preparation does not automatically justify an adjournment, particularly where there has been ample opportunity to prepare a defence. A short adjournment may nevertheless be granted where strict conditions can protect the claimant, including payment into court or other security and payment on account of costs. A worldwide freezing order restrains dealings with assets but does not itself provide security for the claim.

Bonhams sought summary judgment for approximately £4.5 million arising from successful auction bids allegedly made by or on behalf of the first defendant. Bonhams also sought continuation of a worldwide freezing order. The first defendant applied for a further 28-day adjournment, asserting that he had possible defences and had not yet been able to give full instructions.

The court considered the parties’ procedural history, the defendant’s delay and changes of legal representation, the apparent strength of the proposed defence, and the prejudice to both sides if the hearing were adjourned or proceeded immediately.

1. Adjournment and the overriding objective. The court had to deal with the case justly, balancing justice to the defendant against justice to the claimant. The relevant comparison was the prejudice likely to result from granting or refusing the adjournment.
2. The defendant had had ample opportunity, while represented by experienced solicitors and counsel, to identify and support any defence. The proposed defence was in basic terms simple, and important matters remained unanswered. The defendant was therefore in a weak position, although the possibility of a defence with a real prospect of success could not yet be finally excluded.
3. A short adjournment was appropriate because it could give the defendant a final opportunity to demonstrate good faith and establish a defence without materially prejudicing Bonhams. The adjournment was conditional upon security of £2.5 million, preservation within the jurisdiction of the bronze on loan to the Royal Academy, payment of £25,000 on account of costs, and payment of a further £25,000 into court as security for costs.
4. A worldwide freezing order did not constitute security. It restrained dealings with assets, but did not secure payment, particularly where assets were outside the jurisdiction and other creditors existed.
5. The case was listed for a further hearing on 10 December. If the conditions were not satisfied, the summary judgment application would proceed. If summary judgment were granted, the court would exercise its power under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 40, to order immediate payment.

This was a first-instance procedural decision. The judgment records that an earlier adjournment had been granted by Kenneth Parker J for seven days, with adverse costs consequences, before the present application was heard.