Mark Wilson & Anor (as joint liquidators of Westcountrytruffles Limited) v Brian Bryan Frost & Anor

The court exercised its case management discretion to adjourn a trial rather than order a stay. The decision turned on whether it would be fair to adjourn given the First Respondent's psychiatric evidence, the history of agreed extensions, and the need to conduct the litigation expeditiously and justly under CPR 1.1. The expert psychiatric report of Dr Akenzua diagnosing recurrent depressive disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder was treated as materially persuasive that the First Respondent was presently unable to participate fully in trial processes, but the judge rejected a permanent stay because there was prospect of participation after treatment and because the claim should not be halted entirely.

The court also considered the parties' prior conduct in seeking and agreeing extensions, the age of the expert report, the possibility of reasonable adjustments and the relevance of documentary material to mitigate asserted difficulties with recollection and concentration. The trial was adjourned and directions for re-listing and production of witness evidence were ordered.

Background and parties: The applicants are the joint liquidators of Westcountrytruffles Limited and they sued the former directors (the respondents) seeking sums said to be due on overdrawn directors' loan accounts, unlawful dividends, losses for breaches of directors' duties and equitable compensation. The first respondent, Mr Frost, opposed the proceedings and sought either a stay or an adjournment of the trial on the ground of current mental ill health.

Nature of the application: The First Respondent applied on the first day of trial for a stay of proceedings alternatively an adjournment, relying principally on an expert psychiatric report by Dr Akenzua. The report opined that Mr Frost suffered recurrent depressive disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder, that he had severe impairment of executive functioning, that he was unable to take an active role including preparing a witness statement or attending trial, and that he would require treatment over a substantial period before being fit to participate.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the psychiatric evidence justified a stay of the proceedings;
• whether an adjournment of the trial was required to secure a fair trial taking into account CPR 1.1 and the parties' conduct;
• whether reasonable adjustments short of adjournment could permit a fair trial;
• how much weight to attach to an expert report produced some months earlier and whether prior agreed delays altered the equitable balance.

Reasoning and outcome: The judge reviewed applicable guidance on medical adjournments (including Levy v Ellis-Carr and Bilta (UK) Ltd v Tradition Financial Services Ltd), assessed the qualifications and the testing methodology used by Dr Akenzua, and evaluated the history of agreed extensions and the practicalities of preparing witness evidence. Although the expert report was not recent, the First Respondent had ongoing treatment and further supporting medical updates. The court concluded that the psychiatric evidence established a current disability to participate in the trial and that fairness required an adjournment; however, a stay was inappropriate because there was a realistic prospect of future participation and the litigation should proceed in due course. The judge ordered an adjournment, refused a stay and gave directions for re-listing and for the production of witness evidence.

Application allowed in part. The court refused to stay the proceedings but granted an adjournment of the trial. The judge accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that the First Respondent was currently unable to take an active part in trial processes, weighed that against the age of the report, the parties' prior conduct, and the availability of documents and reasonable adjustments, and concluded that adjournment was necessary to ensure a fair trial while avoiding a halt to the litigation.