Hodge Jones & Allen (A Firm) v McLaughlin

An adjournment of an appeal requires sufficient grounds. The court may refuse an adjournment where the appellant has had ample time to prepare, has failed to comply with case-management directions, and has provided no proper excuse. The court may also take account of the absence of confidence that the appeal could be made ready within a reasonable period. Case-management timetables should be obeyed. The opposing party’s entitlement to a fair hearing and resolution within a reasonable time, together with pressure on court resources, are relevant considerations.

A firm of solicitors claimed £24,835.16 in unpaid fees from its former client, who counterclaimed for professional negligence. Following a 17-day trial in the High Court, the client appealed on seven grounds, with permission initially granted on two.

The appeal was repeatedly delayed. Directions allowed time to obtain transcripts and amend the appeal, but the transcripts were not obtained. A later application to inspect the solicitors’ trial notes had been refused. The appellant also removed her appeal bundle, undertook to return it, and failed to comply with subsequent directions. She applied for a further adjournment, relying on the missing transcripts, lack of access to the notes, the missing bundle and medical difficulties. The central issue was whether those matters justified another adjournment.

1. Disposition. The application for an adjournment was refused. The appeal was consequently struck out and dismissed.
2. The appeal had been pending for more than two years. The appellant had had ample opportunity to prepare it but had failed to do so. There was no proper excuse for the continuing lack of readiness, and the court had no confidence that a further adjournment would enable the appeal to be heard within a short or reasonable period.
3. The asserted grounds did not justify an adjournment. The court had previously permitted the appellant to draw funds from her accounts to pay for transcripts and representation. The refusal of inspection of the respondent’s notes had been determined by an earlier order and had been known to the appellant for more than six months. The appellant accepted that the bundle had been removed to update it, but she had undertaken to return it within a week and had failed to comply with further requests and a final deadline. There was also no proper medical evidence, and no evidence that the medical difficulties were recent.
4. The court’s case-management powers entitled it to impose timetables and expect compliance. Repeated adjournments could not be granted as a matter of course, particularly given the demands on court resources. The respondent also had a right to a fair hearing and resolution of the appeal within a reasonable time.
5. Lady Justice Hallett and Lord Justice Sullivan agreed with Mr Justice Arnold’s reasons. Hallett LJ additionally emphasised the absence of any meaningful progress, including failure to file a witness statement required by an earlier order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2013] EWCA Civ 1898. The application for an adjournment was refused and the appeal was struck out and dismissed.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: A deputy High Court judge heard the claim and counterclaim at trial in 2011 and delivered written judgment on 23 September 2011. The citation is not stated in the judgment.