Olden v National Crime Agency

A decision whether to adjourn an application for permission to appeal is ordinarily a case-management decision. The court must balance the need for a fair opportunity to present the case against the requirement for the reasonably prompt and proportionate determination of proceedings. An unresolved application for legal aid does not, without more, require an adjournment. The court may proceed where the litigant has had a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and would not be placed at an unfair disadvantage by appearing in person. Article 6 rights and the Civil Procedure Rules do not create an automatic entitlement to await the outcome of a funding application.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against a county court judge’s refusal to adjourn an oral hearing concerning permission to appeal against a bankruptcy order. The underlying bankruptcy petition concerned costs ordered in favour of the National Crime Agency. The appellant sought an adjournment to await the outcome of a legal aid application and relied additionally on health, financial and travel difficulties.

The county court judge refused the adjournment and refused permission to appeal. Lewis J subsequently refused permission to appeal against the adjournment decision. The matter came before the High Court on renewal. The central issue was whether the refusal to adjourn was arguably unlawful or incompatible with Article 6.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The appellant had not attended the hearing, but the court considered the written material submitted by him and by solicitors who had never come on the record.
2. An adjournment is a case-management decision. The court must consider the interests of justice, proportionality and the need for reasonably prompt determination, while keeping under review whether a litigant in person would suffer an unfair disadvantage.
3. The fact that legal aid had not been obtained did not require the hearing to be postponed. The appellant had been given every reasonable opportunity to put forward his case and had stated that he had nothing further to add to his written submissions. His medical and financial assertions were not supported by sufficient evidence to show that he could not attend or present the appeal.
4. The refusal to adjourn did not breach Article 6 ECHR or the Civil Procedure Rules. The judge was entitled to conclude that awaiting the funding decision did not justify delaying consideration of permission to appeal.
5. The court adopted the reasoning of Lewis J, who had found no arguable basis for challenging the county court judge’s decision. A transcript was directed to be obtained at public expense, and any further application was required to include a copy of it.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): permission to appeal against the refusal to adjourn was refused.
• Aberystwyth County Court: His Honour Judge Jarman QC refused the adjournment and refused permission to appeal from the bankruptcy order.
• High Court: Lewis J refused permission to appeal against the adjournment decision.