Alexander v Willow Court Management Company (1985) Limited

A party seeking an adjournment on medical grounds must make a timely application supported by sufficient evidence. The evidence should identify the relevant medical condition with particularity and explain why it prevents participation in the proceedings. A case-management decision concerning an adjournment attracts a wide discretion, and an appellate court will intervene only where the high threshold for appellate interference is met. Late correspondence, unsupported assertions of ill-health and failure to attend are insufficient. In those circumstances, the court may proceed with the hearing.

The appellant appealed against the dismissal of her county court appeal after she failed to attend a hearing listed at Oxford. She relied on correspondence, emails and a general practitioner’s letter, asserting ill-health, difficulty travelling alone and lack of funds for representation. The county court judge concluded that no proper or timely application for an adjournment had been made and that the medical material did not explain why the appellant could not attend. The Court of Appeal considered whether the material should have merited an adjournment and whether the county court was entitled to proceed with the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Adjournment application. The county court judge had no proper application to adjourn before her. The appellant’s earlier letter sought a change of venue, while the later emails were sent shortly before the hearing. Even if the correspondence were treated as an application for an adjournment, it did not provide proper grounds.
2. Medical evidence. The general practitioner’s letter recorded symptoms of depression, including suicidal ideation, and expressed concern about reducing the appellant’s burdens. It did not identify the medical condition with sufficient particularity or explain features that prevented participation in the appeal process. It also gave no prognosis and did not give the court confidence that the opinion was independent expert evidence. The later correspondence merely asserted the appellant’s position and supplied no evidential basis for the relief sought.
3. Appellate review. The decision whether to adjourn was a case-management decision involving a wide discretion. The appellant therefore faced a high threshold on appeal. The judge had taken into account the absence of a proper application, the appellant’s responsibility to attend or obtain representation or make a timely application, the lack of adequate medical evidence and the lateness of the emails. There was no error warranting appellate intervention.
4. Venue and final order. The complaint that the appeal should have been heard at a court local to the appellant failed for the same reasons. No ground of appeal succeeded, and the county court was entitled to proceed with the hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal: [2018] EWCA Civ 2325.
• Watford County Court and Family Court, HHJ Mellissa Clarke, dismissed the appellant’s appeal after she failed to attend the Oxford hearing.