QB-2022-002353 - [2025] EWHC 1836 (KB)

The hearing of the Defendant’s Part 11 Application came before me on 3-4 July 2025. In advance of the hearing I received a Skeleton Argument from Ms Clare Montgomery KC and Mr Edward Craven KC on behalf of the Defendant and from Mr Philip Sapsford KC on behalf of the Claimant.

On 3 July 2025 Ms Montgomery KC made submissions in support of the Application. Mr Sapsford KC then made submissions in opposition to it. In his submissions, Mr Sapsford KC made reference to some – limited - material which was not in the evidence before me. Towards the end of his submissions on 3 July 2025, Mr Sapsford KC said that he had essentially finished, and that there was little else that he could say, but he wanted to consider whether to make an application to adduce further material. I adjourned the hearing until the following day on the basis that if it was sought to rely on further material, it should be shown as soon as possible to the Defendant’s representatives, and an application to adduce it should be made on the following day.

On 4 July 2025, Mr Sapsford KC said that he was withdrawing from the case on the basis that he was professionally embarrassed. He indicated that a course which the court could adopt would be to adjourn the hearing in order to permit new counsel to make an application to adduce further evidence. I did not understand this actually to be an application to adjourn the hearing; but, to the extent it was, it was opposed by the Defendant. As I indicated at the time, I did not see that there was any valid basis for an adjournment of the hearing, given the amount of time that the parties had had to adduce evidence, the lack of any explanation of why any evidence had not been previously adduced and the fact that there was no identification as to what specific evidence might be the subject of an application. While Mr Sapsford KC said that he thought that an application had been lodged, Ms Montgomery KC told me that none had been notified to the Defendant, and none was shown to the court.

I consider that there is no reason why I should not proceed to determine the Defendant’s application on the basis of the evidence served, taking into account the submissions which were made to me. I should say that I have considered, de bene esse, the limited matters which Mr Sapsford KC told me which went beyond what was in evidence, and considered that they had no effect on my decision on the issues raised by the Defendant’s Part 11 application.