Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Santa Monica Polo Club Ltd & Orsd

An application to adjourn a trial made at the last moment requires consideration of the parties’ conduct, the reasons for delay, whether the consequences can be overcome, any risk to a fair trial, matters affecting the trial, and the consequences for the parties and the court. The applicant bears the onus of justification. Delay caused by the applicant’s failure to take available procedural steps will generally carry substantial weight. Financial difficulties, without more, do not justify an adjournment. Litigants in person remain subject to the same procedural rules as other parties. Indemnity costs require circumstances sufficiently outside the norm; a failed late application may justify standard costs without meeting that threshold.

The claimants had succeeded at an earlier trial concerning trade mark infringement and related liability. Claims against most defendants had settled or were stayed, and the second trial proceeded against two individual defendants. The trial had previously been adjourned because of evidence concerning one defendant’s ill-health.

On the first day of the relisted trial, the defendants sought a further adjournment. They relied on possible proceedings concerning former defendants in administration, difficulty obtaining documents, lack of funds and, belatedly, trial bundle issues. The central questions were whether the delay and evidential difficulties justified postponing the trial and, if the application failed, whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis.

1. Application to adjourn. The application was refused and the trial was directed to proceed. The applicant bears the onus on a contested late application to adjourn.
2. The relevant considerations included the parties’ conduct and reasons for delay; the extent to which the consequences could be overcome before trial; whether a fair trial had been jeopardised; specific matters affecting the trial; and the consequences of adjournment for the parties and the court. The court adopted the approach stated by Coulson J in Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd [2009] EWHC 3070 (TCC).
3. The possible appeal against the earlier judgment was speculative, substantially out of time and had not been pursued by an application to the Court of Appeal. The separate county court proceedings concerning a statutory demand were interim proceedings against a different person and did not materially affect the present trial.
4. The defendants had long known of the alleged need for further documents, had made no application to compel disclosure and had failed to take available steps earlier. Their evidential difficulties were therefore attributable to their own inaction. Lack of funds was not, by itself or in combination with the other matters, a sufficient reason for adjournment. A fair trial had not been shown to be jeopardised.
5. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the failed application on the standard basis. Although they acted as litigants in person, the same procedural rules applied to them as to other parties. The circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to justify indemnity costs.

The judgment describes an earlier trial at which the claimants succeeded and a subsequent adjournment of the second trial. No appellate decision concerning the present application is stated.