Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) v James David Hadley & Ors.

An application to adjourn a trial is a case-management decision. The court must apply the overriding objective and balance the interests of the parties and the court, including the consequences of delay and the effect on the trial.

A first-instance court cannot determine whether a Court of Appeal judgment was obtained by fraud or otherwise reopen that decision. Any challenge must proceed through the available appellate, reopening or independent-action routes. A proposed adjournment based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentation should be refused where the allegations do not show a misrepresentation, conscious and deliberate dishonesty, materiality, or a realistic prospect of success in the proposed challenge.

The claimant brought a complex action against thirteen defendants concerning an alleged conspiracy to injure it financially, including claims concerning bribery. A summary judgment decision in favour of certain defendants, [2022] EWHC 641 (Ch), supplemented by [2022] EWHC 919 (Ch), was reversed by the Court of Appeal in [2022] EWCA Civ 1639.

While the four-week trial was in progress, the sixth, seventh, twelfth and thirteenth defendants made a third application for a lengthy adjournment. They alleged that the claimant had misrepresented or withheld evidence in the earlier proceedings, and sought time to pursue challenges before the Supreme Court, an application to reopen the appeal, or a separate fraud claim. The issues were whether the allegations justified an adjournment and whether this court could determine the alleged fraud affecting the Court of Appeal’s decision.

1. Jurisdiction and proper route. The court had no jurisdiction within the adjournment application to determine whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment had been compromised by fraudulent misrepresentation. The possible routes were an appeal to the Supreme Court, an application under CPR rule 52.30, or a separate action to set aside the judgment for fraud, the latter being a cause of action rather than a procedural application.
2. Applicable principles. Adjournment was a case-management matter governed by the overriding objective. The court had wide powers under CPR rule 3.1(2)(b), but had to consider the consequences for the claimant, defendants and court, the specific matters affecting the trial, and the balance of likely outcomes. The court also had to respect the finality of court decisions and could vary an interim order only where new matters arose.
3. Alleged fraud. In the context of setting aside an earlier judgment, the relevant standard was conscious and deliberate dishonesty concerning material evidence or representations, with the dishonesty instrumental to the judgment obtained. The applicants failed to identify any misrepresentation. The complaints about authority, disclosure, the alleged communication freeze, the March payment email, the no-net-benefit argument and commission arrangements either misunderstood the evidence or concerned matters immaterial to the Court of Appeal’s decision.
4. Bribery and net benefit. The relevant question was whether there was a real possibility of a conflict of interest, not whether the transaction objectively produced a net benefit. The alleged new material did not materially improve the prospects of reopening the appeal, obtaining permission to appeal, or succeeding in a separate fraud claim.
5. The application was dismissed as utterly without merit. A further adjournment was refused. The judgment was requested to be placed before the Supreme Court if it was still considering the applications for permission to appeal. The applicants were ordered to pay the claimant’s and the ninth defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis, with assessment and any interim payment to be determined.

1. High Court, summary judgment: Deputy Judge Karat dismissed the relevant summary judgment application in [2022] EWHC 641 (Ch), with a supplementary judgment in [2022] EWHC 919 (Ch).
2. Court of Appeal: The decision was reversed and judgment was entered for the claimant on the bribery claim in [2022] EWCA Civ 1639, subject to quantum.
3. High Court: The present court dismissed the third application to adjourn the trial and refused to determine allegations impugning the Court of Appeal decision.