Barclays Bank Plc v Scott Dylan & Ors

A committal hearing should be adjourned where proceeding in the proposed timetable would be impractical or unjust. Relevant considerations include the time required, a respondent’s medical circumstances, the availability and preparedness of professional representation, and whether a realistic hearing slot can be secured.

Where an adjournment is granted, the matter should return promptly for consequential directions. The court may need to balance the length of any delay against uncertainty about a respondent’s ability to attend for health reasons.

Barclays Bank Plc brought committal proceedings in two related actions against several respondents. Mr Scott Dylan applied, among other things, to adjourn the substantive committal hearing, which was due to begin shortly after the application.

The court considered Mr Dylan’s medical situation, the estimated length and complexity of the hearing, and the fact that professional representation for the respondents had only recently become available. The application required the court to decide whether the hearing could fairly and practically proceed in the existing listing and what consequential directions were necessary.

1. Application granted. The substantive committal hearing was adjourned because it would be impractical and unjust for it to proceed in the existing slot.
2. The most important considerations were the length of hearing required, Mr Dylan’s medical situation, and the availability of professional representation for the respondents. Counsel instructed immediately before the hearing would not have had a realistic opportunity to assimilate the papers and prepare adequately.
3. The court also took account of the need for a more realistic trial estimate. The proposed listing was based on approximately two days’ judicial pre-reading and six days in court, although the judge indicated that the estimate might require review.
4. The court accepted that the matter should return promptly, subject to any further issue arising from Mr Dylan’s medical condition. It directed a further remote hearing to address consequential matters, the timetable, the appropriate relisting in February or April, and the effect of any continuing inability to attend.
5. The court left open the balance to be struck if Mr Dylan’s period of unavailability remained uncertain. A completely unknown period of absence might justify a different approach from a situation in which the likely duration was known.