Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

An adjournment sought on medical grounds requires sufficiently detailed, current and independent medical evidence addressing the party’s condition, the features preventing participation, a reasoned prognosis and possible accommodations. A general sick note or outdated evidence will ordinarily be inadequate.

For an interim directions hearing, where personal attendance is unnecessary and representation or assistance is available, refusal of an adjournment may remain fair. Each defendant’s disclosure obligations must be considered separately.

An issue pleaded as relevant to a conspiracy claim, including a post-proceedings restructuring, is properly included in extended disclosure. A potential privilege against self-incrimination is dealt with under the applicable disclosure practice direction and does not itself prevent a disclosure order.

Barclays Bank brought two related claims seeking recovery of money allegedly misappropriated by the defendants. Freezing orders had been made, and the proceedings were listed for trial in January 2025.

The court was asked first to adjourn a disclosure guidance hearing because Jack Mason had recently undergone an appendectomy and Scott Dylan had significant mental-health conditions. The defendants also relied on fairness concerns arising from their status and limited legal representation.

After refusing the adjournment, the court considered the scope and management of extended disclosure, including whether a third purported restructuring after commencement of the proceedings should be included, whether privilege against self-incrimination affected disclosure, and the appropriate costs order.

1. Adjournment on medical grounds. The applications were refused. The standard identified in GMC v Hayat 2018 EWCA Civ 2796 required unchallenged and sufficiently detailed medical evidence identifying the practitioner, the practitioner’s familiarity with the condition, the features preventing participation, a reasoned prognosis and an independent expert basis for the opinion. The evidence concerning Mr Mason was a discharge record and a general sick note which did not explain how his symptoms prevented participation in this hearing or whether accommodations were possible. The evidence concerning Mr Dylan was out of date, while more focused current evidence existed but was not relied upon (paras [15]-[22]).
2. The hearing was an interim disclosure directions hearing rather than a trial requiring the defendants’ personal attendance. The defendants had been able to instruct direct-access counsel, provide instructions and engage with the proceedings. In those circumstances, refusal of an adjournment was not unfair. The authorities concerning adjournment of trials, Bowden v Homerton University Hospital [2012] EWCA Civ 245 and Solanki v Intercity Telecom [2018] EWCA Civ 101, did not require a different result (paras [31]-[35]).
3. Disclosure. The third purported restructuring was pleaded as a matter on which Barclays would rely in support of its conspiracy claim. It was therefore plainly relevant and properly included as an issue for disclosure. The court also relied on the conclusion reached on an earlier third-party disclosure application that documents concerning the restructuring were likely to support Barclays’ case or adversely affect the defences (paras [52]-[54]).
4. Any privilege against self-incrimination was expressly addressed by paragraph 14 of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 57AD and did not prevent an order for disclosure. The timetable placed compliance after the anticipated contempt trial, subject to liberty to apply if that timetable changed (paras [55]-[57]).
5. The defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay 30 per cent of Barclays’ summarily assessed costs, namely £17,400 inclusive of VAT. The balance was ordered to be costs in the case (paras [66]-[71]).

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier case-management directions by Deputy Master Henderson and directions made by Meade J in related contempt proceedings, but no appeal from those decisions.