Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

An adjournment will not ordinarily be justified by difficulties caused by a party’s late instruction of legal representatives, particularly where the party previously had access to legal advice and opportunities to obtain representation. The court may assess whether the need for an adjournment results from the conduct and choices of the applicant. In contempt proceedings, prescribed notices and court directions may adequately inform defendants of legal-aid entitlement, the right to silence, and the absence of any obligation to give evidence. Counsel’s unavailability to prepare for a listed trial may be accepted as a practical reason for adjournment, but responsibility and costs may remain with the party whose earlier conduct created the difficulty.

Barclays Bank PLC brought contempt proceedings against Scott Dylan, David Samuel Antrobus and Jack Mason. At a pre-trial review, the defendants applied for a short adjournment, a stay and related relief. They relied on alleged uncertainty about the claimant’s case and evidence, lack of advice concerning legal aid and the right to silence, the handling of affidavits, and the inability of their newly instructed legal teams to prepare for a six-day trial due to begin shortly.

The court considered the procedural history, the opportunities previously given for representation and evidence, the information contained in the N600 applications and earlier directions, and the responsibility for the defendants’ present difficulties.

1. Applications dismissed in substance. The defendants’ applications for an adjournment and a stay were not supported by the matters relied upon. The trial would continue on the listed date unless a fair alternative date before the end of term could be found.
2. The defendants had been informed of their potential entitlement to legal aid. The N600 application notices contained the prescribed information, and the issue had also been raised during the earlier procedural history. The defendants had access to legal advice and had been given an earlier adjournment to obtain professional representation.
3. The defendants had likewise been informed of their right to silence and their lack of any obligation to give evidence or answer questions. Those matters were stated in the N600 applications and expressly addressed in the directions order of 2 June 2023. Filing affidavits did not, without more, mean that the evidence had been deployed or that the defendants had elected to give evidence.
4. The delay in instructing solicitors and counsel after the earlier adjournment was inadequately explained. The court regarded the resulting preparation problems as ultimately the defendants’ responsibility. Counsel’s statement that they could not be ready was accepted, but it did not make the claimant responsible for the consequences.
5. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the adjournment and stay applications, the relevant costs of the hearings and the costs thrown away by the adjournment. Costs were summarily assessed at £59,850.