Scottish Equitable Plc v Thompson & Anor

LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an appeal by Scottish Equitable Plc against decisions of His Honour Judge Cowell who gave judgment in favour of Mr John Anthony Thompson and Susan Joan Pearson in a money claim made against them by Scottish Equitable Plc ("the appellants).

The case has been listed for the whole day. The appellants appear by counsel. Mr Thompson has appeared in person and has addressed the court. He has applied for an adjournment of the case and it is with that application we now deal.

Mr Thompson has informed us that he is no longer represented. It is clear that his former solicitors have come off the record. This only came to the knowledge of the appellants' solicitors within the last couple of days. In doing justice, the court must bear in mind the interests of the parties and the public interest. Mr Thompson seeks the adjournment in order that he may obtain other legal representation. However, in relation to the time factor, members of the court were aware late last week that Mr Thompson was not likely to be represented. I am not able to say from where that information originated.

In accordance with their usual practice, the members of the court, having received a skeleton argument from the appellants, enquired of the office about skeletons from the respondent. It was as a result of such inquiries that the information came to the court.

That is a matter of history. The court has to consider what is the just outcome of this application. A legal point is involved in the appeal. Mr Thompson says he is not in a position to argue it. Asked about the length of the adjournment he seeks, he asks for "some months". He has frankly told the court that he owes his former solicitors in the region of £5,000-£6,000. He has told the court he is not now in full-time employment; he is in part-time employment. He accepts that he is unable to instruct other solicitors at present so the adjournment would have to be for a substantial period of time.

I conclude that he must have been aware that he was not going to be represented today. He has not sought fit to notify the court of that. The case has been listed for the day. If it is adjourned, other litigants will suffer because, if this case is relisted, the cases which would have been heard on that day could not be heard. That is a factor which the court must bear in mind.

The court must also bear in mind the position of the appellants and the fact that the present proceedings were commenced in 1999, although Mr Thompson points out that the dispute has been going on for some years before that. It is time that these matters were finally resolved. The application is opposed by the appellants. In their submission justice must be done to them as well and the long adjournment contemplated would be unfair to them.

We are not able to accede to Mr Thompson's applications, which he has told us he has also made on behalf of the other co-respondent who is now his wife. Clearly, the court does that only having considered the precise situation carefully. If the case proceeds, it will do so on the basis of legal argument and he is not legally qualified. He makes the point that he cannot argue legal points. At present it appears to us that the appellants have a strong case. That is because of the recent decision of this court, delivered on 31 July 2002, in the case of Bristol and West v Bartlett. We shall, as we propose to refuse the adjournment, in due course hear argument on the point. A factor we are entitled to take into consideration is the strength of the case. The value to anyone, especially Mr Thompson, in granting an adjournment which would involve him in further, perhaps unnecessary, costs is a factor we have in mind.

We refuse this adjournment on the basis that it would not be in the interests of justice that the case is adjourned. The interests of justice require that the matter be resolved today.

Accordingly the application to adjourn is refused.

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: I agree.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I also agree.