PI Brief Update

Liability Dispute Resolved Following a Refusal of Trial Adjournment - Sara Da Silva, Senior Associate, RTA, Express Solicitors

30/09/26. Following a contested liability road traffic accident claim which proceeded to trial, the claimant secured judgment after the defendant's application to adjourn was refused and the defendant subsequently accepted the claimant's Part 36 offer.

The claim arose from a road traffic accident on February 14, 2025 involving the claimant, a pedestrian and the defendant's insured driver.

The parties advanced differing accounts of the accident. The claimant's case was that he was returning to his HGV vehicle and was stepping into the driver's side when he was struck by the defendant's vehicle. In contrast, the defendant alleged that the claimant had stepped into the roadway from his vehicle and that, although evasive action had been taken, there had been no contact between the vehicle and the claimant.

The claimant's injuries

As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries to his lower back and right ankle. Medical evidence confirmed that both injuries had resolved within seven months of the accident.

The claimant was also left with a permanent mature scar measuring approximately 2cm on his right ankle. In addition, the claimant sought recovery of miscellaneous expenses totalling £15.

The matter could not be resolved and Court proceedings were issued. The claim was listed for trial at Doncaster County Court on July 8, 2026, with the claimant represented by Henry Atkinson of Express Chambers.

At the date of trial, liability, causation and quantum remained in dispute.

Application to adjourn the trial

On the morning of trial, the defendant did not attend Court. Although the defendant's counsel attended, he was only able to take instructions shortly before the hearing commenced.

The defendant subsequently made an oral application seeking an adjournment on the basis that the defendant's witness was absent.

The claimant opposed the application on two principal grounds.

First, there was no evidence before the Court explaining the witness's absence, and the failure appeared to have arisen from the defendant's own lack of preparation.

Second, the claimant had complied fully with his obligations by attending Court and was entitled to have his claim determined that day. Requiring the parties, legal representatives and witnesses to return for a further hearing would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.

The Court's decision

The Court refused the defendant's application for an adjournment.

In refusing the application, the Court noted that there was no proper explanation for the non-attendance of the defendant's witness and no evidence of any genuine urgent circumstances which might justify an adjournment.

The Judge observed that the Courts should be slow to adjourn trials in the absence of compelling reasons, such as illness or other unavoidable circumstances supported by evidence.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed, and the matter remained listed to proceed.

Acceptance of the claimant's Part 36 offer

Following the Court's refusal of the adjournment application, the defendant accepted the claimant's Part 36 offer.

The outcome was favourable to the claimant. Judgment was therefore entered in the claimant's favour, with damages and costs awarded.

Importance of witness attendance and preparation

This case serves as a reminder that, where liability is fundamentally disputed and credibility is central to the Court's determination, parties must ensure that their witnesses are available and prepared to give evidence at trial.

A witness's non-attendance can have devastating consequences, particularly where the factual dispute cannot be resolved through documentary evidence alone.

The matter also highlights the Court's reluctance to adjourn proceedings where there is no satisfactory explanation for a party's failure to attend trial. The Court's refusal to adjourn reflects the judiciary's increasing emphasis on the overriding objective.

Parties who attend Court ready for trial should not ordinarily be prejudiced by the administrative failings of their opponent. The Court will be reluctant to waste valuable court time, or require parties and witnesses to incur further expense, where no satisfactory explanation has been provided for a witness's non-attendance.

A trial date is not merely a procedural milestone. It is the point at which parties must prove their case. A party cannot assume that an adjournment will be granted simply because a key witness is unavailable. If the evidence required to establish a defence is absent, the Court may proceed without it.

Risks of failing to secure key evidence

The defendant's difficulties arose not because of the strength or weakness of the evidence, but because the key lay witness failed to attend.

This demonstrates the importance of ensuring that witnesses are fully briefed, aware of hearing dates and engaged throughout the litigation process. Ultimately, even a strongly pleaded defence may be rendered ineffective if the evidence required to support it is unavailable on the day of trial.

The case further illustrates the significant risks of pursuing a disputed liability claim to trial without ensuring that key witnesses will attend and give evidence. It demonstrates the Court's unwillingness to adjourn proceedings in the absence of compelling reasons, the strategic value of Part 36 offers in contested litigation, and the potentially substantial costs consequences that can arise when a defendant chooses to litigate liability to the door of the Court.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome