This site uses cookies.

Editorial: Delay and Adjourned Hearings - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers

27/02/19. Previous editorials have drawn attention to the prevalence of late adjournments of trials due to judicial availability or court resources. Anecdotally, the ripple effect of these adjournments seems to be leading to substantial delays. Towards the end of January, a fast track trial in one of the London courts was vacated due to over-listing. It has now been re-listed at the end of September – eight months after the original trial. In mid-February at a different London court, a one hour application hearing was adjourned to be re-listed on the first open date after fourteen days. The application has been re-listed in November. The effect of delays of eight / nine months on the parties’ recollection of events would make an interesting academic study.

On other occasions, the difficulty in listing applications has led to important applications being listed on the morning of trial. Where the outcome of an application is capable of affecting the result of a case, it does not assist the efficient resolution of the case for the trial to follow immediately after the application. To take an obvious example, if the Defendant loses an application for permission to withdraw an admission on the morning of trial, the work done by both parties to prepare for a liability trial will be wasted.

In some respects, this remains a localised problem. Many courts remain efficient at listing both trials and applications. Perhaps to some extent, issues surrounding applications could be resolved by even greater use of telephone hearings or by the Court determining straightforward applications on the papers pursuant to CPR 23.8(c). But the core issue is one of resources; substantial improvement is likely to require significantly increased investment in civil justice, including in the recruitment of more Judges.

Aidan Ellis
Temple Garden Chambers

Image ©iStockphoto.com/serggn

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.