MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LIMITED v JOHN FORSTER EMMOTT

Whether to adjourn a listed hearing for counsel’s convenience is a case-management decision. The absence or unavailability of counsel is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to adjourn, particularly where the issues are procedural and can be dealt with by litigants in person. The court must balance fairness against wasted public resources and delay to other court users.

A direction to serve an application and evidence on a proposed party may constitute notice intended to facilitate an application for joinder, rather than formal service of proceedings. A party cannot ordinarily reopen its liability for costs after the costs order has been made. Enforcement consequences for non-payment should ordinarily be sought by formal application.

The claimant applied to adjourn a listed hearing concerning the settlement of an order made after an earlier hearing and directions for the final disposal of an application for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution.

The claimant relied on the unavailability of leading and junior counsel. The defendant opposed the adjournment and appeared in person with assistance from a McKenzie Friend. The court also had to determine the wording of provisions concerning notice to Kazakh Holdings, possible joinder under CPR Part 19.4, reduction of a freezing order, and consequences arising from unpaid costs.

1. Adjournment refused. The decision whether to adjourn for the convenience of counsel was a case-management decision. The hearing had been listed for a known date, and counsel’s unavailability did not provide a sufficient reason to adjourn. The issues were procedural and could be dealt with by the parties in person, even if that would take longer. Adjournment would waste public resources and delay other litigants.
2. Freezing order. The issue of the maximum sum secured under the freezing order was adjourned to the first available date after 17 January 2020. Unless the defendant filed and served a counter-schedule by that date, the frozen sums were to be reduced to £2,567,249, having regard to the ruling that compound interest was not recoverable under the third quantum award.
3. Notice and joinder. The direction concerning Kazakh Holdings required notice by service of the application and evidence at its registered office. It did not require formal service of proceedings under Part 6 and was intended to facilitate an application by Kazakh Holdings for joinder under CPR Part 19.4. The order therefore recorded that both parties would not oppose such an application if made.
4. Costs. The earlier sum of £8,500 plus VAT, if applicable, was a summary assessment of costs and not a payment on account. Liability arose within 14 days under CPR 44.7. The court declined to debar the claimant from defending the receivership application because no formal application for that relief had been made. Time for payment was extended by ten days, after which the defendant was given liberty to apply.

Not stated in the judgment.