KB-2025-002427 - [2025] EWHC 1993 (KB)

The application for an adjournment

On the morning of 16 July 2025 (the day before the hearing) Mr Andrew Pickerill (“D2”) and Mr Nicholas Harvey (“D7”) each applied for the hearing to be adjourned. They explained that they were seeking pro bono representation but had been unable to do so in time for the hearing. D2 said that he had an active grievance against the Claimant, and he believed that it was abusing its position and resources to pressure him by these proceedings. D7 said that he had not received information about the hearing in sufficient time to arrange childcare. He expressed grave concern regarding the Claimant’s request for access to his phone and said that he was feeling very stressed by the proceedings.

I directed that the parties should file any observations on the applications by 4 p.m. the day before the hearing. The Claimant strongly opposed the applications and said that the Defendants had first been sent a letter before action on 20 June 2025 and had initially been represented by solicitors. They had had sufficient notice of the application which had been properly served. The Claimant noted that two of the Defendants were legally represented and were instructing counsel to attend the hearing and that significant costs would be incurred if the hearing was adjourned.

Having considered the requests and the observations, I declined the requests for an adjournment. The Defendants had been properly served and were on notice for some time about the proceedings. An adjournment would waste costs in circumstances where, on the Claimant’s case, there was urgency in granting the relief sought. It would not be in accordance with the overriding objective for the hearing to be adjourned. I noted however the reported travel and childcare difficulties and I directed that CVP would be available and that any of the Defendants could appear remotely by CVP.  I also directed that the hearing should be listed for 2 p.m. to assist travel. I indicated that if any party wished to renew their request for an adjournment, then that could be addressed at the outset of the following day’s hearing.

At the start of the hearing on 17 July 2025, I was informed that no party intended to renew their request for an adjournment. D2 appeared in person, and I was informed that D3 was on holiday and had not contemplated attending the hearing.