Friend MTS Limited v Friend Partnership Limited

A stay of civil proceedings on medical grounds is exceptional and requires very clear justification. Stress caused by the proceedings will ordinarily not justify a stay because it is likely to recur when the proceedings resume. The medical evidence must address the diagnosis, its effect on the party’s ability to participate, and the prognosis for future participation. Those principles must be applied consistently with the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Overriding Objective. The court should make reasonable adjustments for disability while balancing the other party’s interest in avoiding undue delay. A stay may be refused where another director has sufficient knowledge to conduct necessary procedural steps, although additional time may be allowed.

Friend MTS Limited claimed repayment of £226,000 plus VAT paid to Friend Partnership Limited under an invoice said to relate to dilapidations or, alternatively, services. The claim was at an early procedural stage. Friend Partnership applied for a stay until 12 January 2026, relying on the ill-health and recovery of Denise Friend, whom it said was the only person able to instruct its solicitors. It also sought relief from sanction for failing to file a Directions Questionnaire. Friend MTS opposed the stay and sought an order requiring responses to its questions under CPR Part 18.

The issues were whether the stringent test for a medical stay was satisfied, whether Malcolm Friend had sufficient knowledge to provide instructions, and what procedural adjustments were appropriate.

1. The stay application was refused. A stay on medical grounds is exceptional and requires very clear justification. It should not ordinarily be granted where the relevant stress is caused by the proceedings themselves, since that stress is likely to recur. The court applied those principles from Financial Conduct Authority v Avacade Ltd and Ors and the authorities concerning adjournments on medical grounds.
2. The supporting medical evidence must come from a medical professional with detailed knowledge of the party and the relevant condition. It must identify the diagnosis, explain how it prevents or limits participation in the proceedings, and provide a reasoned prognosis addressing when and how participation may resume. The judge admitted and gave due weight to the treating consultant’s letters. Permission to rely on such evidence was implicit in the wider application and did not require a separate application under CPR Part 35.
3. The stringent test was subject to the duty, reflected in the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Overriding Objective, to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled party or witness. That duty had to be balanced against the other party’s interest in avoiding undue delay.
4. The evidence showed that Malcolm Friend had substantial direct involvement in the disputed payment and the relevant office arrangements. He therefore had sufficient knowledge to instruct solicitors on pre-CCMC tasks and to provide at least an initial response to the Part 18 questions. Further detail could be supplied after Denise Friend’s recovery where her exclusive knowledge was credibly established.
5. As Malcolm Friend was also Denise Friend’s husband and carer, additional time was appropriate. Friend Partnership was granted relief from sanction for failing to file its Directions Questionnaire. Time was extended for filing it and responding to the Part 18 questions, and the case was to be referred for directions for a CCMC.

Not an appeal. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate history.