Blackfriars Ltd, Re

The court’s case-management power to adjourn a trial must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective. During the COVID-19 restrictions, the default position was that hearings should continue remotely wherever this could be done safely and fairly. An adjournment was not justified merely because a remote trial presented substantial technological, logistical or health-related difficulties. The court should assess the evidence available, allow time for practical arrangements to develop, require co-operation and testing, and consider whether particular issues or witnesses could be dealt with separately. Safety, equality of arms, the importance of the dispute, delay and proportionality were relevant factors.

The joint liquidators of One Blackfriars Limited sought an adjournment of a five-week trial against the company’s former administrators. The claim concerned alleged mishandling of the administration and an undervalue sale of the company’s principal asset. The trial involved four factual witnesses, 13 experts and a substantial documentary record.

The application was made in response to the COVID-19 restrictions and the perceived risks and difficulties of conducting a fully remote trial. The central issue was whether the trial should be adjourned until 2021 or whether the parties should continue preparing for a safe remote hearing.

1. Application refused. The court refused to adjourn the trial and directed the parties to continue preparing for it, including by co-operating to explore a fully remote hearing. The arrangements were to be reviewed at a further pre-trial review.
2. The power to adjourn or bring forward a hearing arose under CPR 3.1(2)(b). It was a wide case-management discretion, to be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR Part 1.1(2).
3. The Coronavirus Act 2020, especially sections 53 to 56 and Schedule 25, supported the continuation of civil court work through increased use of video and audio technology. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 also expressly treated attending court and participating in legal proceedings as reasonable excuses from restrictions on movement and gatherings. The statutory scheme therefore supported, rather than prohibited, remote hearings where they could safely take place.
4. The court rejected the submission that a remote trial was inconsistent with Government guidance. The guidance established that as many hearings as possible should continue remotely, subject to safety and practical considerations.
5. Health concerns did not justify an immediate wholesale adjournment. The trial was still several weeks away, the evidence of individual difficulties was limited, possible mitigation had not been fully explored, and the parties could consider trying issues without particular witnesses or narrowing the scope of the trial.
6. The technological difficulties were serious but not insuperable. The parties were required to co-operate in selecting and robustly testing suitable video, audio and document-handling systems, including testing bandwidth and ensuring that witnesses could properly view and control documents. The court noted the risk of unfairness identified in Invista Textiles UK Ltd v Botes [2019] EWHC 58 (Ch).
7. The parties were well resourced and had equality of arms. The case’s importance, the large sums involved, the long-standing nature of the allegations and the significant delay that an adjournment would cause all weighed against postponement. The claim was also substantially document-based, so a physical courtroom was not shown to be essential.