CA-2024-001383-B - [2025] EWCA Civ 1065

The hearing of ANL’s application was listed for 17 July 2025 with a time estimate of half a day, following directions given by the court on 8 April 2025. At that stage both parties appear to have proceeded on the assumption that SA’s Deputy and her legal representatives would be relying on the medical reports that were before the FtT and UT, albeit that they were now somewhat out of date.

On 26 June 2025 SA’s legal representatives notified ANL that they proposed to make an application for an adjournment of the hearing. That application was not issued until 3 July, and it did not come to our attention until 9 July. The application sought an adjournment of 4 months in which to obtain updated medical evidence from the same Consultant Psychologist who had examined SA over a lengthy period following her release from detention under the Mental Health Act, and produced the report in 2021 on which the FtT had relied. It was said that SA’s Deputy and her legal team had identified the need for a further expert medical report on 17 June 2025. It was not until after ANL had put in its submissions opposing the adjournment, that SA’s solicitors provided any explanation for the delay in making its application. The explanation was not very satisfactory, though I accept that SA can be challenging for her legal representatives and her Deputy to deal with.

ANL strongly opposed the application for an adjournment. They pointed out that SA’s representatives had already had ample time in which to obtain and serve updated evidence if they wished to do so. ANL had informed SA’s solicitors that they did not consider this belated request provided adequate justification for an adjournment of a listed hearing in the Court of Appeal, and that if SA’s Deputy wanted to provide a further medical report he should do so as a matter of urgency and without further delay. This remained ANL’s position. They described the requested length of the adjournment as “wholly excessive” and pointed to the fact that three months had already elapsed since the judgment had been handed down. The application raised important open justice issues and it was wasteful of the court’s resources and contrary to the parties’ obligations under the Overriding Objective to wait until the eleventh hour before raising the need for further evidence requiring an adjournment.

SA’s solicitors confirmed in their response to ANL’s objections that they were seeking an updated report on SA’s capacity, which in the court’s view was unlikely to advance matters to any significant extent.

The court refused the application to adjourn. We considered that despite the practical difficulties in gaining co-operation from SA which were described by her solicitors, they could and should have turned their minds much sooner to the question whether updated medical evidence was required. In any event, SA is still subject to an order from the Court of Protection and therefore her lack of capacity to litigate and to manage her own financial affairs is not in dispute. Given that ANL were content to proceed without an updated report (and thus to forego any opportunity to rely upon any improvement in her mental health) and there was no evidence before the Court of any material change either way in SA’s condition since the reports that were considered by the FtT, there was no justification for granting an adjournment.