Chanel Limited v Charlotte Skeens

An application to adjourn a trial is determined by asking whether proceeding would be fair in all the circumstances. The decision is a case-management decision governed by the overriding objective, including fairness, equality of footing, economy and expedition. Where fairness requires an adjournment, the court must grant it, despite inconvenience to the other party or a history of delay. A real doubt about a litigant’s capacity may justify an adjournment to obtain further evidence, even where incapacity has not been established on the balance of probabilities.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning alleged breaches of confidentiality obligations and undertakings given by the defendant. The matter was listed for a three-day trial. At the outset of trial, the defendant sought an adjournment because her newly instructed representatives had a real and reasonable doubt about her capacity to conduct the litigation and because her young son had been taken to hospital.

The defendant relied also on difficulties concerning trial bundles and the limited preparation time available to her new representatives. The central issue was whether fairness required the trial to be adjourned so that her capacity could be independently assessed.

1. The application was granted and the trial was adjourned. The court applied the principles in Barclays Bank Plc v Shetty [2022] EWHC 19 (Comm). Fairness is fact-sensitive. An adjournment is a case-management decision governed by the overriding objective, and fairness must be assessed in relation to both parties.
2. Where the court concludes that an adjournment is necessary in the interests of fairness, it must grant one. Inconvenience to the opposing party or other court users is not, ordinarily, a countervailing reason for refusing an adjournment.
3. There is a presumption that a person has capacity. However, applying Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan [2024] 1 WLR 4212, a real doubt about capacity may justify an adjournment for further and better evidence, even where the evidence does not establish incapacity on the balance of probabilities. Proceeding without resolving such a doubt may cause unfairness and procedural difficulties.
4. The defendant’s solicitor and counsel had independently formed concerns about her capacity. The evidence, including the defendant’s reported need for support in engaging with others and making budgeting decisions, was sufficient to require an independent psychiatric assessment. The court therefore adjourned the trial with directions intended to secure its early relisting.
5. The child’s medical emergency independently provided a good reason for the defendant’s absence on that day. The bundle arrangements and the need for newly instructed representatives to prepare would not, standing alone, have justified an adjournment.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier interim injunctions, case-management hearings and adjournments, but no appeal from a lower court decision.