Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors

An adjournment application must be assessed against the overriding objective. The court considers what is at stake, any clear prospects of success, the effect on scarce court resources, proportionality, and prejudice to the other parties. Delay to obtain legal representation will not justify an adjournment where the application is late, inadequately supported, and the issues can fairly be addressed without it. An application is totally without merit where it is bound to fail.

This was a consequential hearing following the court’s earlier judgment, which had struck out most of the claim, transferred the data protection claim to the County Court, and entered summary judgment on most other claims. The claimant, acting in person, sought an adjournment to obtain legal representation and relied additionally on medical material. She did not attend the hearing. The court determined the adjournment application, costs, extensions of time, and whether two earlier applications were totally without merit. The question was whether fairness and the overriding objective required further time before consequential orders were made.

1. Adjournment. The application was late and non-compliant with the court’s order. It lacked direct evidence from the proposed solicitors and gave no adequate explanation for why representation had not been sought earlier. The court assessed the application under the overriding objective, taking account of the matters at stake, the apparent prospects of success, the risk of consuming scarce court resources without useful or proportionate benefit, and prejudice to the defendants.
2. The claimant’s health evidence did not establish that she was unable to present her position or that an adjournment was required. The medical material was limited, the delay in obtaining it was unexplained, and the claimant’s extensive correspondence and written submissions demonstrated an ability to engage with the proceedings. The adjournment application was refused.
3. The court nevertheless extended time for seeking permission to appeal and for serving draft amended particulars. The claimant was unrepresented, a lawyer might formulate any grounds more effectively, and the defendants would suffer negligible prejudice. A further extension would be unlikely without evidence from the lawyers explaining the need for it.
4. Costs. The defendants were awarded the costs of the consequential hearing and the majority of their costs of the claim. The general rule applied because the claimant had lost on substantially all issues and no tenable reason for departing from it was shown. A payment on account of £35,000 was ordered. Interest on costs was awarded under the Judgments Act 1838.
5. Totally without merit. Applying R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1091, the relevant question was whether the applications were bound to fail. The injunction application and the earlier medical adjournment application met that test and were certified totally without merit. The decision on a Civil Restraint Order was reserved.

The judgment was a first-instance consequential decision following an earlier judgment of the High Court, [2020] EWHC 3035 (QB). No appeal history is stated.