Adjournments on medical grounds — the importance of detailed evidence

Explore our Will and inheritance dispute expertise

We were recently served with (and defended) a short notice application by a claimant to adjourn an upcoming three-day trial on medical grounds.

Here, Georgina Vokes and Nicola Turner from our Will and inheritance disputes team explain the legal arguments used and why the application was refused, with some key learning points for future claimants.

‘Serious eye infection’

The claimant argued that he was unable to prepare for the trial as he was suffering from a serious eye infection which meant that he couldn’t use a computer. Attached to the application was a discharge note from the claimant’s attendance at A&E, a letter from an optometrist and a prescription.

Legal arguments

The Judge was referred to several cases on behalf of the claimant and defendants, including Levy v Ellis Carr [2012] EWHC 63, Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170, Three Mile Inn Ltd [2012] WL 2191544 and Fox v Graham Group PLC [2001] WL 825240.

The claimant attempted to rely on Fox to suggest that it’s often the position that the court would allow an adjournment for the first time if the application was supported by medical evidence.

This was refuted by the defendants, who relied on Levy. This sets out guidance as to what medical evidence should be provided when applying for an adjournment on the grounds of ill-health, stating that “such evidence should identify the medical attendant and give details of his familiarity with the party’s medical condition (detailing all recent consultations), should identify with particularity what the patient’s medical condition is and the features of that condition which...prevent participation in the trial process, should provide a reasoned prognosis...”

When giving Judgment, the Judge considered various factors including the quality of the medical evidence. He was of the opinion that the medical evidence provided was limited as it didn’t deal with how and why the claimant would be prevented in being able to take full part in the trial process.

The Judge also took into consideration a prior adjournment of the trial following the claimant’s application, the court’s availability to re-list the trial, the natural expectation of the parties that the case would progress expeditiously and the fact that the claimant had been able to prepare the application and two witness statements with exhibits despite having the eye infection.

Importance of detailed evidence

The claimant’s application was refused and the trial proceeded.

This case reinforces the importance of producing suitably detailed expert evidence when applying for adjournments, with particular emphasis on explaining how the condition would prevent the applicant from participating in the trial process. It should also provide a reasoned prognosis. On this occasion we represented the defendants and were able to swiftly respond to the application to ensure that the trial wasn’t derailed and proceeded as our clients wished.