Transomas Limited & Anor v Kheri Trading Limited & Anor

A fixed trial date should rarely be adjourned. The applicant should identify a change of circumstances unknown when the trial was fixed and apply promptly. The court must then apply the overriding objective, balancing the risk of unfairness if the trial proceeds against the prejudice, cost, delay and use of court resources resulting from an adjournment.

An adjournment is not justified by historic or unparticularised disclosure complaints, a wish to investigate unpleaded claims, proceedings in other jurisdictions, unsupported allegations, or a litigant’s chosen lack of legal representation where the case is ready for trial.

The claimants sought to adjourn a 12-day trial concerning alleged fraud and misrepresentation arising from the sale of a hotel within a family dispute. Their grounds included alleged inadequacy of disclosure, proposed consolidation with proceedings in England and the United States, the need to investigate complaints against non-parties, and alleged malicious prosecution.

The claimants’ solicitors had recently come off the record, but the claimants had previously had substantial legal representation. The defendants opposed the adjournment and made a separate application for an unless order requiring further information concerning a wages claim.

The central issues were whether the claimants had shown a genuine change of circumstances and whether the overriding objective justified delaying the fixed trial.

1. Relief from sanctions. Relief under CPR 3.9 was granted. The breach was not serious in context, the defendants knew of the intended application, and no material prejudice was shown. The court applied Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.
2. Adjournment principles. Under CPR 3.1(2)(b), the discretion to adjourn must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective. Once a trial is fixed, an adjournment is rare. Ordinarily there should be a change of circumstances unknown when the trial was fixed, and the application should be made as soon as possible. The court must balance the desirability of retaining certainty and avoiding substantial duplicated costs against any irredeemable prejudice if the trial proceeds.
3. The disclosure complaints did not establish a genuine change of circumstances. There was no alleged breach of an existing disclosure order, no application for specific disclosure, no adequate identification of the documents sought, and no explanation for the delay in raising the complaints. The court would not adjourn a trial to enable a party to fish for unpleaded causes of action or investigate unsupported allegations.
4. The later proceedings in other jurisdictions could not justify an adjournment. Consolidation was unrealistic, and the claimants had chosen to bring the present proceedings on discrete pleaded issues. Complaints concerning proposed additional parties and non-parties did not explain why the existing trial could not proceed.
5. The claimants had had a proper and reasonable time to prepare, and their decision to remain without legal representation did not create real prejudice. By contrast, an adjournment of about 18 months would cause severe prejudice to the defendants through duplicated costs, financing costs, fading memories, continuing allegations and risks concerning the availability or reliability of evidence. The balancing exercise therefore decisively favoured refusal.
6. The adjournment application was refused. An unless order was made under CPR Part 18: unless the claimants provided the specified information by 4 pm on 3 November 2023, the wages claim would stand dismissed and would not be addressed at trial.

not stated in the judgment.