Masadur Rahman v Dewan Raisal Hassan & Ors

An adjournment of a trial should be granted where proceeding would make the trial unfair. Fairness is assessed in all the circumstances and by reference to the overriding objective, without mechanically applying a checklist. Relevant considerations include the parties’ conduct, the effect of delay, the ability to remedy prejudice, the impact on witnesses and the consequences for the parties and the court.

A litigant’s loss of legal representation does not, by itself, justify an adjournment. Medical grounds require sufficient, properly supported evidence. The applicant must provide enough detail to show how the asserted circumstances affect preparation or participation. A shorter accommodation may be appropriate where it preserves a fair trial.

The claimant sought an adjournment of a seven-day trial concerning the validity of alleged gifts made as donationes mortis causa. The application was made shortly before trial and followed the cessation of the claimant’s solicitors’ retainer.

He relied on alleged delay in preparation of the trial bundle, his wife’s hospital appointment, and deaths of close relatives in Bangladesh. The defendants opposed the application. The central issue was whether, on the evidence provided, the trial could fairly proceed and whether the competing consequences of an adjournment favoured postponement.

1. Application refused. The court held that a fair trial remained possible on the material put forward.
2. Applications to adjourn must be determined by the overriding objective and by an assessment of fairness in all the circumstances. The assessment is fact-sensitive and does not involve the mechanistic application of a fixed checklist. In a late application, relevant matters include the parties’ conduct and reasons for delay, whether the consequences can be remedied, any risk to a fair trial, matters affecting witnesses, and the consequences for the parties and the court, applying [2003] EWCA Civ 1516 and (2009) 128 Con LR 91.
3. Where illness or medical circumstances are relied upon, the court must assess their actual effect on a fair trial. Appropriate medical evidence should identify the condition, explain why it prevents participation, provide a reasoned prognosis, and assist the court in evaluating alternatives to an adjournment. The evidence remains part of the material as a whole and need not be accepted automatically, applying [2021] EWCA Civ 221 and [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch).
4. The claimant had not shown that the defendants’ delay caused significant prejudice. His loss of representation was insufficient by itself to justify an adjournment, particularly since representation had ceased more than a month before trial and he had access to the relevant documents. His wife’s outpatient appointment could be accommodated by not sitting on that afternoon, without vacating the whole trial. The asserted family deaths were unsupported by sufficient detail.
5. The delay resulting from an adjournment would probably be between 14 and 17 months, further postponing administration of the estate, depriving beneficiaries of their inheritance, and wasting allocated court resources. Those consequences, together with the public interest in finality, meant that the interests of justice firmly favoured refusal.