Both counsel agree that the Court has to have regard to a number of matters which are in the White Book, and which in fact have been accepted by this Court in the case of T.S. Engineering Limited -v- Raymond Bisson (12 June 1996) Jersey Unreported, and these matters are… to go through them very quickly: "The importance of the proceedings and their likely adverse consequences to the parties seeking the adjournment"; secondly: "The risk of the party being prejudiced in the conduct of the proceedings if the application were refused...". Well, we have been told that the defendant would not have time to answer fully the ergonomic report or the forensic accountant’s report. But then there is no obligation to make these reports available in any case, and the Court agrees that they should be exchanged on a mutual basis. Thirdly: "The risk of prejudice or other disadvantage to the other party if the adjournment were not granted. It is clearly to the disadvantage of Miss Hotchkiss; she has had this matter hanging around for a long time; it is equally clear that she has some injury, though whether it is to the extent she claims is not for us to say today, but she is clearly not a well person and if she has to wait for some time - and we think it would be for some time - even with the best will in the world, she would be disadvantaged. Moreover, the plaintiff has arranged for a medical witness to come to Jersey who is distinguished in his field, as indeed is the expert produced by the defendant, and it would be very difficult to alter the dates at such short notice.
"Convenience of the Court…" Well yes, of course, but if justice requires it our own convenience must be put aside. Generally, I think, we are entitled to take the interests of justice into account when dealing with the efficient dispatch of Court business.
This matter has been set down since 28 November 1998 "and the desirability of not delaying future litigants by adjourning early and thus leaving the Court…." That’s not quite the same point here, because we have fixed dates but that is all the more reason why we should keep as far as we can to our time table. " The extent to which the party applying for the adjournment has been responsible for creating the difficulty which has led to the application.." Well we don’t think there is much to be said to that.
Looking at it in the round, we think that this is not an application which, in the interests of justice, we feel we should grant, and therefore the case will proceed on Monday, and in the normal way, costs follow the event, and costs of this application will therefore be paid by the defendant.
Authorities
TS Engineering Ltd v Bisson (12 June 1996) Jersey Unreported.