OCM Maritime Nile LLC & Anor v Courage Shipping Co & Ors

An adjournment is discretionary and should be granted where refusing it would amount to a denial of justice. The court must apply the overriding objective and balance fairness, equality of arms, expense and expedition. Particular care is required where refusal may have severe consequences, including in committal proceedings. The applicant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence to establish that refusal would cause a denial of justice. A late application, inadequate explanation, unexplained failure to secure representation over a reasonable period, and insufficient evidence concerning personal difficulties may justify refusal.

The claimant applied for committal proceedings against the fourth defendant, who sought an adjournment. He relied principally on the absence of legal representation, recent detention in Denmark, his brother’s circumstances and his own health. The court considered the case-management principles applicable to adjournments, including the importance of representation in proceedings with potentially criminal consequences, and whether the evidence established that proceeding would deny justice.

The central issue was whether the applicant had shown that an adjournment was necessary to avoid a denial of justice.

1. Application refused. The court refused the application for an adjournment and directed that the substantive contempt application proceed.
2. The decision whether to adjourn is discretionary and must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective under Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Relevant considerations include putting the parties on an equal footing, saving expense, and dealing with the case expeditiously and fairly. Where refusal may have severe consequences, such as dismissal of proceedings or committal, the court must take particular care.
3. A litigant whose presence is needed for a fair trial but who cannot attend through no fault of their own will ordinarily require an adjournment. That principle has limits. A late application, or a failure to explain why legal representation could not have been obtained earlier, may weigh decisively against an adjournment.
4. The applicant had the burden of satisfying the court that refusal would amount to a denial of justice. That burden was not discharged. There was inadequate detailed evidence about attempts to obtain representation, despite approximately five months having elapsed since previous representation ended and despite the availability of Legal Aid in contempt proceedings.
5. The evidence concerning detention in Denmark, the applicant’s brother’s situation and the applicant’s health did not explain why representation could not have been secured or why the full period of delay could not be addressed. The history of late, poorly supported adjournment applications provided an additional reason for refusal, although the decision was reached independently on the insufficiency of the evidence.