Shehabi v Kingdom of Bahrain

An adjournment is a case-management decision governed by the overriding objective. The central question is whether proceeding would produce an unfair hearing in all the circumstances. The assessment is fact-sensitive and does not depend on a mechanistic checklist.

Where refusal would make the hearing unfair, an adjournment should ordinarily be granted. Fairness extends beyond the parties to the administration of justice and the proper allocation of limited court resources. Delay caused by a party’s own difficulties, without evidence that a fair hearing is jeopardised, will not ordinarily justify an adjournment.

The claimants brought claims in tort under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, alleging unlawful interception, hacking and surveillance by agents of Bahrain. The defendant had applied to challenge the court’s jurisdiction on state-immunity grounds and to set aside earlier orders concerning service out of the jurisdiction.

Shortly before the listed jurisdiction hearing, the defendant’s former solicitors sought to cease acting. New solicitors came on the record and applied to adjourn, stating that they lacked sufficient time and documents to prepare. The central issue was whether the hearing could fairly proceed on the listed dates.

1. Application refused. The defendant had not established that proceeding with the jurisdiction hearing on 22 and 23 February would result in an unfair hearing.
2. The decision was a case-management decision governed by the overriding objective. The relevant inquiry was whether, if the hearing proceeded, it would be fair in all the circumstances. That inquiry was fact-sensitive and did not involve the mechanistic application of a checklist. If refusal would make the hearing unfair, an adjournment would ordinarily be required, notwithstanding inconvenience to the other party or other court users.
3. The evidence showed no substantial factual dispute. The state-immunity issue had previously been treated as a question of law, all relevant evidence had been filed, and the defendant did not state that it wished to alter its case or adduce further evidence. Suggested cross-examination was speculative.
4. Fairness had to be assessed as between both parties and also in the context of the administration of justice. The court could take account of the disruption to other litigants and the allocation of limited court resources. The defendant’s difficulties arose substantially from its own change of legal representation and did not provide a convincing basis for adjournment.
5. The direction requiring the defendant to file the hearing bundle was varied so that the claimants would file it. The skeleton arguments remained due under the existing timetable. Any later application to change the defendant’s case or introduce further evidence would require a separate and clearly explained application.