Mark Surguy

This Practice Note considers the power of the court to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and a party’s ability to apply for such an adjournment. In particular, it sets out the five specific ‘Fitzroy Robinson’ factors the court will consider when determining an application to adjourn or bring forward a hearing, together with consideration of cases in which the Fitzroy factors have been applied. It also looks at other factors the court may take into account, including the timing of the application to adjourn, and examines the ill-health of a party or witness and what medical evidence must be provided when applying to adjourn on such grounds.

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Russell Hill of Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP, and Mark Surguy and Amy Mullen of Weightmans LLP, looks at investigation and enquiry into a company’s assets for insolvency office-holders, the equitable process of tracing, substitution and practical considerations for asset tracing.

This Precedent and its associated Drafting Notes offer guidance on drafting a litigation co-operation (LCA) agreement between co-claimants. It addresses various issues that commonly arise when parties are bringing a claim together including but where only one firm of solicitors is permitted to appear on the record as acting for all parties: liability for costs and fees; how the fees of the solicitors who are on the record for the claimants are to be paid; how any costs awards, damages and/or settlement are to be apportioned; the extent to which the parties are required to co-operate with each other in progressing the litigation (including in relation to disclosure, evidence generally, complying with rules, practice directions and court orders, settlement etc); indemnities in the event they do not co-operate; confidentiality, both as between themselves and as between the other parties; privilege etc. It also incorporates various boilerplate provisions. This agreement is not suitable for class claims or group actions. It is likely to be suitable for a limited category of cases where co-claimants do not want to use the same firm of solicitors. The scenario chosen in this precedent is co-claimants who were formerly under common ownership in a corporate group but owing to a re-organisation the ownership of the co-claimants is no longer the same. The precedent is confined to two claimants but could be adapted to accommodate more than two.