DR SHEELA JOGULA RAMASWAMY v GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

An adjournment may be granted where it is fair and promotes the efficient disposal of proceedings, including where a litigant in person wishes to retain unavailable counsel. The court may nevertheless make the adjournment conditional on payment of costs caused by the party’s failure to follow clear procedural directions. A litigant in person is entitled to appropriate allowance, but must take obvious and reasonable steps, or raise any difficulty promptly with the court and the opposing party. Costs wasted by that failure may be recoverable, while costs connected with substantive arguments may properly be reserved where their future necessity remains uncertain.

This was a procedural claim under section 41 A(10)(b) of the Medical Act 1983, seeking revocation or variation of an interim conditional registration order. The claimant sought an adjournment because her direct-access barrister was unavailable. The defendant did not oppose the adjournment, but sought its costs of preparing bundles, preparing a skeleton argument and attending the hearing.

The claimant had been told that an on-notice application using Form N244, together with the relevant fee, was required. She did not make the application or communicate any difficulty before the hearing. The central issues were whether the case should be adjourned, whether the adjournment should be conditional on costs, which costs should be recoverable, and whether the one-day time estimate should remain.

1. Adjournment. The claim was adjourned. It was appropriate to allow the claimant to have her chosen counsel continue to represent her, particularly since the defendant did not oppose postponement. Continuing the case before the same judge would also promote efficient disposal. The interim regulatory order remained in force, and the adjournment deferred consideration of the claim’s substantive merits.
2. Procedural responsibility. The claimant had received clear instructions from the court that an application in Form N244 was required. She knew that she had not complied and had ample opportunity to seek assistance or raise any difficulty with the court or defendant. Her status as a litigant in person warranted allowance, but did not excuse the failure to take obvious and reasonable steps.
3. Costs. The adjournment was therefore conditional on payment of the defendant’s costs of preparing the bundles and attending the hearing, summarily assessed at £2,500 and payable within 35 days. Those costs were foreseeable, avoidable and incurred because the claimant failed to pursue the required application. The costs of the skeleton argument were reserved because its future necessity depended on whether the substantive claim returned to the court.
4. Fee and listing. The claimant was required to pay the £275 application fee within 14 days, failing which the claim would stand dismissed. The requirement for an N244 application was dispensed with under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 23.3(2)(b). The one-day fixture remained appropriate, subject to later reconsideration if professional advice showed that more time was required.

First-instance procedural decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.