Axnoller Events Ltd & Anor v Brake & Ors

An adjournment of consequential matters must be justified, particularly where it would disrupt imminent trials or prejudice other parties. The court must consider the effect on the orderly conduct of court business, the prejudice to opposing parties, and the reasons advanced for the adjournment. Serious but unparticularised allegations concerning a judge, and counsel’s unexplained withdrawal, do not by themselves justify delaying proceedings. The court should do the minimum necessary to preserve the proper conduct of related proceedings and may give limited consequential directions while leaving fuller issues for a later hearing.

The judgment concerned three related sets of proceedings involving the Brake Parties and the Guy Parties. A hearing before His Honour Judge Matthews was listed to deal with matters consequential on two recent judgments and to give directions for imminent possession and eviction trials.

The Brake Parties’ solicitors sought to vacate the hearing after their counsel withdrew, citing serious but unspecified concerns about the Judge’s conduct and indicating that recusal and permission-to-appeal applications might be made. The matter was transferred exceptionally to Mr Justice Marcus Smith to determine the adjournment application. The central issue was whether the hearing, and consequentially the imminent trials, should be adjourned.

1. The application was refused. The court held that an adjournment, particularly one affecting imminent trials, had to be closely justified. The application was in substance wider than an adjournment of the day’s hearing because it would leave the possession and eviction proceedings without necessary directions and risk their adjournment.
2. The court was required to consider the effect of adjournment on the orderly conduct of court business and the prejudice to the Guy Parties. The need to preserve the proper conduct of imminent trials could not be disregarded.
3. The allegations said to support recusal were serious but wholly unparticularised. Counsel had withdrawn without explaining the conduct relied upon, and the court could not proceed on the assumption that the withdrawal itself established a proper basis for recusal or justified an adjournment.
4. The court nevertheless proceeded on the assumption that the Brake Parties were innocent of, and uninvolved in, their counsel’s withdrawal. That did not require an adjournment. The existence of solicitors on the record, and the time available to address the consequences of the withdrawal, were relevant considerations.
5. The court would deal with consequential matters with a light touch, doing the minimum necessary to protect the Guy Parties’ interests and preserve the imminent trials. It indicated that the interim injunction might be maintained in modified form so that relevant documents could be disclosed and used in those proceedings, and that an interim payment on account of costs could be ordered.
6. A further hearing was to be arranged in the week commencing 12 April 2021, preferably before His Honour Judge Matthews, without prejudice to any properly formulated recusal application. The intervention by Mr Justice Marcus Smith was exceptional.

The judgment describes earlier procedural decisions in the related litigation, including an interim injunction under [2019] EWHC 3332 (Ch), refusal of a recusal application under [2020] EWHC 1156 (Ch), and dismissal of insolvency proceedings under [2020] EWHC 1810 (Ch). It also refers to the Main Judgment and Preliminary Issue Judgment, reported at [2021] EWHC 671 (Ch) and [2021] EWHC 670 (Ch). The present judgment refused the application to adjourn the consequential hearing.