PI Brief Update

Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers

17/04/25. In Mather v Basran, the High Court addressed several issues surrounding an adjournment request made by the Defendant, Mr Rattan, on medical grounds during a trial involving allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The trial commenced on February 10, 2025, and Mr. Rattan, who was appearing as a litigant in person, reported suffering from Bell's Palsy, a condition that caused facial weakness.

On the second day of the trial, Mr. Rattan arrived at court but later indicated he was unwell, prompting a brief adjournment to allow for his medical condition to be assessed. Despite his initial claims of illness, Mr. Rattan managed to participate in the trial proceedings without any significant difficulty, leading the judge to question the legitimacy of his adjournment request. The trial judge, His Honour Judge Hodge KC, acknowledged Mr. Rattan's medical condition but also emphasised the importance of ensuring that both parties could participate equally in the proceedings.

Mr. Rattan submitted a medical certificate stating he was not fit to attend court for the next two weeks, but the judge noted that it did not address his ability to participate remotely via live video link. The judge pointed out that, given the current technological capabilities, it was increasingly feasible for parties to attend court remotely, even with medical conditions. This was particularly relevant as Mr. Rattan was not providing live witness evidence and would simply be making submissions.

The judge expressed concerns about Mr. Rattan's previous history in the case, including his lack of timely applications for relief from sanctions regarding his witness statement. This history raised doubts about the sincerity of his request for an adjournment. The judge noted that Mr. Rattan had been aware of the trial date for over 11 months and questioned why he had not sought medical treatment or raised concerns about his health sooner.

Ultimately, the judge denied Mr. Rattan's request for an adjournment, concluding that his participation in the trial had not been materially impaired by his medical condition. The court proceeded with the trial as planned, allowing for Mr. Rattan to participate remotely if necessary. The judge’s decision was influenced by the understanding that an adjournment could disrupt the proceedings and the court's resources, emphasising the need for expedience and fairness to all parties involved.

Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ

Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59