Ashford Borough Council & Anor v Wilson

An application to adjourn a trial on medical or health-related grounds must be supported by adequate evidence addressing the party’s condition, its effect on effective participation, and the nature of the hearing. The assessment is fact-sensitive and includes consideration of whether legal representation or practical adjustments can secure a fair hearing. Bare assertions of illness, hearing impairment or Covid-19 exposure are insufficient. The court may consider the previous conduct and procedural history when assessing the reliability and weight of the evidence. Where the application is unsupported and the trial can proceed fairly by remote or hybrid means, refusal and certification as totally without merit may be appropriate.

The claimants alleged that the defendant had conducted a prolonged campaign of harassment against council officers. An interim injunction had been granted, and the trial was listed for February 2021. Earlier applications concerning transfer to Part 7 proceedings and postponement had been refused, and directions had been given for special measures.

In January 2021, arrangements were made for a hybrid hearing because of the Covid-19 emergency and the defendant’s asserted hearing difficulties. The defendant then applied again to adjourn, stating that he had recently contacted a person who had tested positive for Covid-19 and would need to self-isolate. He also relied on hearing impairment and other medical conditions, but supplied no supporting medical evidence. The issue was whether the trial should be postponed or could fairly proceed in a remote format.

1. Application refused. The defendant’s application to adjourn was unsupported by evidence of a satisfactory nature and was certified as having been made totally without merit.
2. An adjournment application based on health or medical grounds requires evidence identifying the condition, explaining how it prevents effective participation, addressing prognosis where relevant, and enabling the court to assess possible accommodations short of an adjournment. The court must consider the medical condition together with the nature of the hearing, the issues, the party’s role, and the availability of legal representation or other arrangements. This approach was drawn from Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 and the principles identified in GMC v Hayat [2018] EWCA Civ 2796, including the evidential requirements stated in Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch).
3. The defendant provided no proper evidence of either the alleged Covid-19 exposure or the asserted hearing impairment. The chronology, including the fact that an earlier postponement request had effectively been rejected and that the new application followed shortly afterwards, entitled the court to view the explanation sceptically. His account also appeared inconsistent with his assertion that he had been self-isolating.
4. The absence of proper medical evidence was particularly significant because the defendant sought to establish that a remote hearing could not be fair. The previous orders had made clear that supporting medical evidence would be required. The court concluded that the trial should proceed rather than be adjourned.

not stated in the judgment.