Michael Fred Hanson v Michael Oliver Hanson

Applications to adjourn a trial on medical grounds require sufficiently specific and reasoned medical evidence. The evidence should address the condition, the features said to prevent participation in the trial, prognosis, and whether an adjournment is necessary or likely to improve the party’s ability to participate.

The court must apply the overriding objective while balancing fairness, equal participation, efficient use of court resources, compliance with directions, and the interests of other parties. A party’s difficulty at trial caused principally by failure to serve evidence is not ordinarily cured by an adjournment. Where an adjournment is sought to obtain legal representation, the court may consider the party’s previous representation and the time available to instruct lawyers.

The claimant sought delivery up of a Ferrari motor vehicle said to belong to him and a motorcaravan said to be jointly owned by the parties. The defendant, acting in person, applied shortly before the two-day trial for a 30-day adjournment. He relied on depression, anxiety, recent medical treatment, difficulty preparing his defence, and the prospective availability of solicitors who could not prepare for the listed trial at short notice.

The claimant opposed the application. The court had to decide whether the medical evidence justified an adjournment and whether fairness, legal representation, the defendant’s non-compliance with directions, and the overriding objective required the trial to be vacated.

1. The renewed application was refused. The trial was to proceed.
2. The court applied the overriding objective in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including the need for fair and proportionate resolution, equal footing, effective participation, the best evidence, expedition, proper allocation of resources, and compliance with rules, directions and orders. The defendant’s health was also considered as a possible vulnerability affecting participation.
3. Following the guidance in Levy v Ellis Carr [2012] EWCH 63 (Ch), medical evidence for an adjournment should identify the medical attendant and familiarity with the patient, detail recent consultations, identify the condition and the features which prevent participation in the trial, provide a reasoned prognosis, and give confidence that the opinion is independent and properly founded. A medical report remains part of the evidence as a whole and is not binding on the court.
4. The general practitioner’s letter established depression, anxiety, stress, treatment and consultations, but did not explain which features of the condition prevented participation in the trial. It gave no reasoned prognosis and did not indicate that an adjournment was medically necessary or that the requested period would materially improve the defendant’s condition.
5. The defendant’s principal trial difficulty arose from his failure to serve witness evidence in breach of case-management directions. An adjournment would not alter that position without an application for relief from sanctions under Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The court summarised the three-stage test in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906; see also [2014] 1WLR 3296.
6. The defendant had previously been legally represented and had sufficient opportunity to re-instruct solicitors. Although he could express himself clearly and courteously, that did not establish that he could not participate in the trial. The application was therefore refused and the trial proceeded.