Naylor v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

Adjournment of a fixed trial is a last resort. A counsel’s diary conflict and a party’s preference to retain existing counsel will not ordinarily justify an adjournment where reasonable notice permits a suitable replacement. The conflict remains relevant to whether a fair and workable timetable can be achieved.

In managing expert evidence, the court should set dates that are necessary, proportionate, realistic and achievable under the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include settlement opportunities, informed decision-making, avoidance of unnecessary cost and the efficient allocation of court time. Supplementary expert evidence should be permitted where it is materially relevant to issues arising from changed circumstances.

The claimant brought a clinical negligence claim in which liability and causation had been admitted and only quantum remained for trial. She applied for permission to rely on supplementary accommodation and care evidence, extensions of time for updated schedules and an adjournment of the fixed quantum trial.

The application followed the claimant’s purchase and occupation of a new bungalow, which created material issues concerning accommodation, adaptations and future live-in care. The court also considered a subsequent conflict affecting the availability of the claimant’s trial counsel, the timetable for expert discussions and the parties’ conduct of the case.

1. Application and orders. The application to adjourn the trial was refused. Permission was granted for the claimant to rely on the supplementary reports of Mr Cumbers and Ms Way. Directions were made for updated schedules, supplementary evidence, expert meetings and joint statements. The costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the case.
2. Counsel availability. The existing counsel’s Covid-related diary conflict, and the claimant’s understandable preference to retain her, did not justify an adjournment. The court adopted the reasoning of Fraser J in Bates v Post Office Ltd [2017] EWHC 2844 (QB), including the powerful reasons for reluctance to adjourn where reasonable notice allows suitable replacement counsel to be secured. The change of counsel remained relevant to whether the timetable was fair and workable.
3. Case management and expert evidence. The court had to determine a timetable that was necessary, proportionate, achievable and realistic, having regard to the overriding objective. It had to preserve appropriate opportunities for settlement, avoid undue pressure on the claimant and unnecessary public expense, and account for the impact on the efficient administration of justice and other cases. The new property was directly relevant to the accommodation and care evidence, so the supplementary reports should be admitted.
4. The court found no justification for the last resort of adjourning the trial. Maintaining the existing trial window promoted the interests of justice. The court expressed concerns about missed opportunities to address the new accommodation earlier, while making clear that it was not making factual findings or levelling specific criticism.