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

An adjournment of a trial on medical grounds is a case-management decision governed by the overriding objective. The central question is whether proceeding would allow a fair trial in all the circumstances. The court must assess the quality and currency of the medical evidence, the litigant’s ability to participate, the history and conduct of the litigation, possible reasonable adjustments, the merits and significance of the case, and the need for proportionate and efficient use of court resources. A medical report is evidence to be evaluated with the other circumstances; it does not automatically require a stay or adjournment. An adjournment may be appropriate where the litigant’s disability prevents meaningful participation, even where the defence appears weak.

The liquidators of Westcountrytruffles Ltd brought claims against its directors concerning overdrawn directors’ loan accounts, unlawful dividends, breaches of directors’ duties and equitable compensation. The first respondent applied for a stay or, alternatively, an adjournment of the listed trial, relying on psychiatric evidence that he could not presently participate actively in the proceedings, prepare a witness statement or attend trial effectively.

The liquidators resisted the application, relying on delay, the litigation history, the available evidence and the alleged weakness of the defence. The court considered whether the trial could fairly proceed with adjustments or whether an adjournment was required.

1. Adjournment granted; stay refused. The court treated the application as a case-management decision governed by CPR 1.1. The question was whether there would be a fair trial in all the circumstances: [2021] EWCA Civ 221.
2. Medical evidence supporting an adjournment should identify the practitioner, the party’s condition, the features preventing participation, a reasoned prognosis and the basis for an independent expert opinion. The court must assess the report as part of the material as a whole, including the previous conduct of the case, and is not bound to accept it: Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch).
3. Dr Akenzua was suitably qualified and had undertaken objective clinical testing. The fact that he was not the respondent’s usual practitioner, and that the assessment was conducted remotely, did not justify rejecting his evidence. The report established a current impairment of executive functioning and an inability to take an active role in preparing the defence.
4. The court considered the report’s age, the respondent’s subsequent treatment, the history of extensions, the existing pleadings and evidence, his previous participation in related winding-up proceedings, and possible measures such as preparing evidence in several sittings and using contemporaneous documents. Those matters did not sufficiently demonstrate that he could presently participate in a fair trial.
5. The apparent weakness of the defence was relevant to the overall circumstances, but did not determine the application. The claim for relief under section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 raised factual issues requiring determination. Proceeding while the respondent was unable, through no fault of his own, to participate meaningfully would risk an unfair trial.
6. The trial was therefore adjourned, with directions for relisting and the production of witness evidence.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.