APPLICATIONS TO ADJOURN A TRIAL BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH: APPLICATION REFUSED BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DID NOT ADDRESS SOME KEY ISSUES
In Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment of the ongoing trial. The defendant had produced medical evidence stating that he could not attend court, however, considering all the circumstances of the case, this evidence did not justify the adjournment of the case.
” particularly post-pandemic, the potential difference between being unfit for work and being unfit to attend court, is of some significance, given the wide use of live streaming and CVP in most court centres. It is now much easier for parties to attend court remotely, and for their evidence to be given, or their submissions heard, over a live link. In this way, even a party with a medical condition may, depending on the symptoms, be expected to participate remotely in a court hearing.”
THE CASE
The claimants brought an action for misrepresentation against a number of defendants. The one active defendant, Mr Rattan, was unable to adduce witness evidence at the trial. He had filed witness evidence late and never applied for relief from sanctions. The defendant had been represented by solicitors at various stages, however at trial he was a litigant in person. During the trial he informed the court that he had medical issues. He later produced a medical note saying that he was unfit to attend trial. The judge refused to adjourn the trial.
THE JUDGMENT ON THE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN
85.The trial resumed at 10.35 am in the absence of Mr Rattan. Mr Vickers made a number of points tending to confirm that the 5 December 2012 email had been sent by Mr Rattan (as I find to be the case). In the light of Mr Rattan’s forthcoming appointment with his GP, scheduled for 11.00 am, at 10.55 am I adjourned the trial until 12 noon. During that adjournment, Mr Vickers kindly provided me with copies of the decisions of (1) Norris J in Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch) (with Mr Vickers directing me to paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment) and (2) the Court of Appeal in Bruce v Wychavon District Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1389.
86.I have at all times been conscious of Mr Rattan’s status as a litigant in person and also of the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 of dealing with the case justly and at proportionate cost; in particular, the requirement to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing and can fully participate in the proceedings,. Accordingly, at 11.19 on the morning of the second day of the trial, I sent an email to Mr Rattan acknowledging receipt of his two most recent emails. I continued:
I have been discussing matters in open court with Mr Vickers (for the claimants).
I have adjourned until 12 noon by which time I hope to have received an update from you about your medical consultation with your GP, together with any supporting documentation from your GP. If you wish to attend remotely at 12 noon, please let the court know and it will send an invitation to your email address.
There are three options available to the court:
(1) To adjourn the trial with permission to restore at a future date convenient to all parties.
(2) To resume as a hybrid hearing (with you attending remotely and the claimants’ side in court) at 2.00 pm
(3) To resume either as a hybrid hearing or with everyone including you in court at 10.30 am tomorrow. In this event, I would suggest that you stay on in Manchester until the trial concludes.
I would welcome your observations on these alternative courses with your report about your consultation today.
87. At 12.12 the court received an email from Mr Rattan forwarding “a medical certificate from the doctor following the hospital attendance last night”, and requesting “an adjournment please due to health reasons”. In fact the medical certificate is dated 11 February. It is on the headed notepaper of Fullwell Cross Medical Centre. It is signed by Dr Vedat Barut (a name that does not appear amongst the names of the six doctors at that practice whose names are printed on the headed notepaper). The body of the letter reads as follows:
RE: Medical Certificate for Court Proceedings
This letter is to confirm that I have assessed my patient today who is currently experiencing an acute episode of Bell’s palsy for which I have prescribed treatment. Due to their current medical condition, they are not medically fit to attend court proceedings for the next two weeks. I recommend a pause in proceedings until 25/02/2025 to allow adequate time for recovery.
Mr Rattan’s email says nothing about the second or third of my suggested alternative courses of action. In it, Mr Rattan expressed no wish to address me remotely later that day.
88.The hearing resumed at 12.30 without Mr Rattan in attendance. I received oral submissions from Mr Vickers opposing any adjournment of the trial. He accepted that the medical certificate submitted by Mr Rattan did more than the doctors’ notes in the two authorities he had referred me to. It identified the medical attendant; detailed the most recent medical consultation; identified what the relevant medical condition was; and stated in terms that Mr Rattan was not medically fit to attend court proceedings for the next two weeks. However, Mr Vickers pointed out that Dr Barut had not identified the features of Mr Rattan’s condition that prevented him from participating in the trial process; nor had Dr Barut explained why Mr Rattan should be able to do so after two weeks. I consider that there is force in the first of these criticisms, but the second can probably be explained by the fact that the documentation previously provided refers to the treatment for Bell’s Palsy as including a ten-day course of steroids. Mr Vickers criticised Mr Rattan for waiting until the second day of the trial before applying for any adjournment and obtaining and supplying any supporting medical evidence. Mr Vickers submitted that this was simply a delaying tactic, undertaken with a view to securing the time to raise funds to secure legal representation. Having known that this trial was coming on for the past 11 months, this was something that Mr Rattan should have undertaken at a very much earlier point in time. Mr Vickers also reminded the court that this is not a case in which Mr Rattan is giving, or calling, any witness evidence in support of his defence. During the course of Mr Vickers’s submissions, it was established that should the trial be adjourned part heard, it could not resume before me, with both Mr Vickers and his clients in attendance, before the week commencing 28 July 2025.
89.At the end of Mr Vickers’s submissions I indicated that unless the claimants were content to see the trial adjourned, I would refuse Mr Rattan’s request for an adjournment of the trial. I gave a brief summary of my reasons; and I indicated that these would be set out more fully when I came to deliver my substantive judgment. After taking instructions over a short adjournment, Mr Vickers indicated that the claimants would like the trial to continue at 10.30 the following morning. He pointed out that if Mr Rattan had any difficulty in speaking, he could have someone in attendance who could ask his questions for him; and he would have the afternoon to prepare his questions.
90. As promised, I proceed to set out my reasons for refusing Mr Rattan’s request for an adjournment of the trial. In addition to the guidance provided by Norris J’s judgment in Levy v Ellis-Carr, I also derive assistance from the leading judgment of Coulson LJ in the Court of Appeal in Bruce v Wychavon DC at paragraph 42. This reads:
Furthermore, particularly post-pandemic, the potential difference between being unfit for work and being unfit to attend court, is of some significance, given the wide use of live streaming and CVP in most court centres. It is now much easier for parties to attend court remotely, and for their evidence to be given, or their submissions heard, over a live link. In this way, even a party with a medical condition may, depending on the symptoms, be expected to participate remotely in a court hearing.
91. From the authorities, I consider that the following propositions (which are not intended to be exhaustive) are relevant when considering any application for an adjournment of a hearing on medical grounds:
(1) The decision whether to grant or to refuse an adjournment is a case management decision, which is to be exercised having regard to the ‘overriding objective’ in CPR 1.1 of dealing with the case justly and at proportionate cost.
(2) Of particular importance is the need, so far as practicable, of ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in the proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence.
(3) But also relevant are the requirements of economy, proportionality expedition, fairness, and the appropriate allocation and application of the court’s scarce resources.
(4) The court must consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly and fairly with the application to adjourn, bearing in mind the different, and often competing, interests and needs of all the parties. These will include the timing, and the circumstances, of the application, and the previous conduct of the parties.
(5) Medical evidence tendered in support of any adjournment application should: (a) identify the attending clinician; (b) give details of their familiarity with the applicant’s medical condition (including details of all recent attendances); (c) identify, with particularity, (i) the nature of the applicant’s medical condition, and (ii) the specific features of that condition which (in the opinion of the attending clinician) prevent the applicant’s effective participation in the hearing or trial process: (d) if the condition is ‘stress’ induced or ‘stress’ related, explain how adjourning the hearing or trial may affect the condition, given that the litigation will still be ongoing, and the resulting stress can therefore be expected to continue; (e) expressly address the capability of the applicant to participate in the hearing or trial process remotely via a live video link, identifying (if appropriate) any specific features of the applicant’s condition which (in the opinion of the attending clinician) might prevent this; and (f) provide a reasoned prognosis, and also a timetable for recovery.
(6) The court should consider what weight it should attach to the medical opinion evidence, and what arrangements, short of an adjournment (such as remote participation via a live video link) might be made to accommodate the applicant’s difficulties.
(7) Any decision to refuse an adjournment on medical grounds may fall to be reviewed, either on further application, or of the court’s own initiative, as a result of any material change of circumstances, or any other material developments, during the course of the trial which may further indicate an inability to participate fully in the proceedings.
92. In the present case, I refused Mr Rattan’s request for an adjournment for the following reasons: First, and foremost, Dr Barut’s letter states that Mr Rattan is “not medically fit to attend court proceedings for the next two weeks”. However, it does not address his ability to participate remotely in a trial by live video link. This is a significant omission in view of the reference, in my email to Mr Rattan timed at 8.22 that morning, to the option of Mr Rattan attending the resumed trial remotely. Mr Rattan had clearly received this email because he had responded to it at 9.09, long before his GP appointment. I had also referred to the option of resuming as a hybrid hearing (with Mr Rattan attending remotely and the claimants’ side in court) in my later email timed at 11.19 that morning. Nor does the doctor’s letter make it clear that the doctor appreciated that Mr Rattan would not be giving any live witness evidence, and so would not be subject to any cross-examination, and that his role would be limited to listening, cross-examining two of the claimants, and making oral submissions.
93. Secondly, I was concerned by the previous history of Mr Rattan’s conduct of and in these proceedings, and the light that this threw upon the genuineness of his adjournment request. First, Mr Rattan had thrice previously instructed, and then withdrawn, his instructions from solicitors: first Sheridans, and then Karam, Missick & Traube LLP (twice). His email timed at 10.26 that morning suggested that one reason for seeking an adjournment might be to give him some “time to request some friends and family to assist me with funds so I can get legal representative”. This was despite having known about the trial date for some 11 months. Second, there was the reported, and varied, nature of Mr Rattan’s medical conditions. On the first day of the trial, he had been complaining of some form of virus, with vomiting and diarrhoea (although on Monday afternoon he had been able to accommodate a hearing lasting over an hour and a half with only one short toilet break). However, there was no mention of any of these complaints in the reports of either Mr Rattan’s attendances at the hospital on the Monday evening or his GP’s surgery on the Tuesday morning. At both consultations, Mr Rattan’s reported complaint resulted in a diagnosis of Bell’s Palsy. This was a condition that Mr Rattan had mentioned at the end of the hearing before me on Wednesday 5 December. Yet Mr Rattan had not sought any medical treatment for, or requested any adjournment on account of, this condition until the evening of the first day of the trial.
94. In the event, I am satisfied that my decision to refuse Mr Rattan’s request for an adjournment of this trial was entirely justified. It has been vindicated by the way in which he has been able to conduct himself during the remainder of the trial. He has not in any way been disadvantaged in the conduct of his defence. Any difficulties that Mr Rattan may have experienced when cross-examining Mr Mather and Mr Ledigo, and in making submissions to the court, are entirely the product of the nature, and the limitations, of his defence, and his inability to rely on any positive evidence in support thereof, rather than being attributable to any medical condition affecting Mr Rattan.