An appeal was made against a refusal of an adjournment.
Held: Although the question of whether to grant an adjournment is essentially a matter of discretion, only if the decision refusing to grant an adjournment was wholly wrong should the Court of Appeal interfere. If it is not possible to obtain justice without an adjournment, then, regardless of the inconvenience thereby occasioned, the adjournment should be granted. Woolf LJ: ‘It would have been perfectly proper for Mrs. King [the applicant] perhaps to have been subject to an a order for costs which made her liable for the costs of the adjournment in any event.’ and ‘As is apparent as a result of a further application which is before this court by Mrs. King, which it is not necessary for the court to deal with specifically, (Mrs. Kings is – she will forgive me saying so – a somewhat eccentric lady) and without the assistance of a surveyor it is quite clear that she had no prospects whatsoever of properly putting her case before the court. However, in the absence of Mr. Allen, the recorder took the greatest care, insofar as it was possible for him to do so, to investigate the plaintiffs’ claim. But, having investigated the plaintiffs’ claim, he came to the conclusion it was fully made out.
In my view the situation was one where it was quite impossible for justice to be done to Mrs. King once the decision had been taken to refuse an adjournment. In my view this is one of the exceptional cases where, while it is understandable that the learned recorder should have taken the view he did about the adjournment, his decision was clearly wrong. The balance of justice in favour of granting the adjournment was of a different proportion to the hardship if any which would be caused to the plaintiffs if an adjournment was granted. This was one of those unfortunate situations which the courts are faced with from time to time, where there is really no alternative if justice is to be done but to grant an adjournment, albeit that it is highly inconvenient and highly frustrating to the courts if that course is taken.’
Judges:
Woolf LJ
Citations:
Times 13-Jul-1987
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith v Chief Constable of Kent CA 26-Jan-1998
The plaintiffs had sought to claim against the defendants for tort of malicious prosecution The trial had been vacated once on the defendants paying costs, and they made a second application, saying that more days were needed. That application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.229222