Decoulos v Axel Springer Schweiz AG & Ors

When deciding whether to adjourn proceedings, the court must balance the need for expeditious and fair disposal under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 1. Medical evidence must be sufficiently specific and compelling to justify further delay. The court may proceed where the applicant can communicate with the court, has had a fair opportunity to make written submissions, and can participate by telephone. The interests of other parties in obtaining the protection and assurance of an existing civil restraint order are relevant. A further adjournment was therefore refused.

The Court of Appeal considered a request by Ms Decoulos to review an extended civil restraint order made by Christopher Clarke LJ on 28 February 2017. The order was said to extend until 27 February 2019 and to follow an earlier order made by HHJ Foster QC. Ms Decoulos sought a further adjournment on medical grounds, relying on medical information concerning recurrent acute sigmoid diverticulitis. She had already filed written representations and was able to communicate with the court by telephone. The immediate issue was whether the review hearing should be adjourned.

1. Adjournment application. The further application for an adjournment was refused. The court proceeded to consider the substantive application concerning the extended civil restraint order, but the supplied judgment records no final determination of that application.
2. Overriding objective. In applying Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the court had to ensure that the application was dealt with both expeditiously and fairly. The respondents had a legitimate interest in obtaining assurance that the civil restraint order would protect them from further court proceedings initiated by Ms Decoulos. Repeated adjournments undermined that assurance.
3. Medical evidence. The medical evidence did not establish a specific and compelling reason for further delay. Although the doctor stated that Ms Decoulos could not travel or work, she had been able to communicate with the court and make oral and written submissions in support of the adjournment.
4. Fair opportunity to participate. The court also took account of Ms Decoulos’s existing written representations and the many months available to supplement them. If necessary, the substantive application could be determined on those written submissions, supplemented by anything she was able to say by telephone.

The order refusing the further adjournment was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2017] EWCA Civ 2632, Lord Justice Sales refused the further adjournment application. The supplied text does not record the final outcome of the substantive review of the extended civil restraint order.
• High Court of Justice: The judgment refers to an earlier extended civil restraint order made by HHJ Foster QC.