The defendant had sought an adjournment, which was refused, with specified conditions for any renewed application.
Held: The present application was not by solicitors who had accepted instructions to appear at the trial, and therefore did not meet the conditions set out. In any event insufficient information had been placed before the court toassess the merits of the application. ‘this application is another attempt without any cause to sabotage an early trial of the Preliminary Issue. It reflects the mind frame of Mr van Hoogstraten to which I referred in my judgment given on the 29th July 2005 that there would be no timetable without his consent and that he would abide with no timetable to which he did not agree. ‘
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 2575 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Raja v Van Hoogstraten ChD 11-Nov-2005
The defendant sought adjournment of the trial of his action.
Held: The defendant had tried to frustrate the hearing of the case. The delay was refused with leave for legal representatives appointed for the trial to renew an application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.235024