This Practice Note deals with applications to adjourn a hearing or directions appointment in financial remedy proceedings. It looks at the obligation to attend hearings and the powers of the court, general principles and approach, and specific matters relating to applications on grounds including ill-health, problems with representation and issues with readiness or evidence. There is signposting to practical guidance on adjournment for non-court dispute resolution and cancelling a final hearing because an agreement has been reached. The Practice Note also provides guidance on procedure and the court’s approach to proceeding in the absence of a party. For information on the court’s power to adjourn particular aspects of a party’s financial remedy claims, see Practice Notes: General principles—lump sum orders and Pension sharing orders. The term ‘hearing’ will be used to refer to a hearing or a directions appointment unless context dictates otherwise. See also: Procedural guide—adjourning a hearing in financial remedy proceedings. Obligation to attend hearings and the power to adjourn A party must attend a hearing or directions appointment of which

Dispute Resolution analysis: This interesting and high-profile case arose out of the collapse of BHS. It considered what to do in circumstances in which an imprisoned defendant (Chappell), who had been released at the start of the trial, complained that he had been unable to properly prepare for the trial and would be unable to properly participate in it. Unusually, Chappell only sought to adjourn the trial against as against him. The court therefore had to consider whether to grant an adjournment and, if so, whether to adjourn the entire trial or sever the trial of the claims against Chappell. The court indicated that it would have granted a short adjournment only to allow Chappell to get up to speed, but for various reasons was prepared to grant a longer adjournment. Having initial strongly opposed severance, the judge also agreed to sever the trial as against Chappell, with directions to follow the end of the trial against the other defendants. Written by Jon Felce, partner at Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further below. This Practice Note provides guidance on the courts’ general approach to applications to adjourn an interim hearing. For examples of how the principles discussed below have been applied by the courts in practice, see Practice Note: Adjourning interim hearings—illustrative decisions. Power to adjourn an interim hearing The court has power to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b). Note the definition of ‘hearing’ for the purposes of interim applications is found in CPR 23.1. For information on adjourning trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial. What factors will a court take into account on an application to adjourn an interim hearing? No guidance is given in CPR 3.1(2)(b) as to how the power to adjourn should be exercised. It is therefore governed by the overriding objective under CPR 1.1. As noted by the court in Decker v Hopcraft at

The tables below provide examples of cases in which applications to adjourn interim hearings have been considered by the courts. For ease of reference they are divided up into successful and unsuccessful applications. For guidance on the general principles that the courts apply when faced with an application to adjourn an interim hearing, see Practice Note: Adjourning interim hearings. For guidance on applications to adjourn a trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial. Examples of successful adjournment applications Case details and analysis Judgment date Grounds of the adjournment application Summary of decision EB Pension Fund v Froggatt [2024] EWHC 2721 (Ch)  27 June 2024 The court had failed to action a notice of change to remove solicitors from the file which meant that the claimant was unable to obtain representation. At first instance, the adjournment application failed without reasons being given by the court and the decision was given without any indication in the order that she had applied for an adjournment. The claimant appealed.The appeal was allowed. It was held that the facts were ‘on

NOTE: On 1 October 2026, a newly formed Business and Property Division replaces the Chancery Division—see News Analysis: The new Business and Property Division of the High Court. This Practice Note contains references to, and information derived from, the Chancery Guide. It is understood that a Business and Property Division Guide is being drafted and it is assumed this will replace the Chancery Guide. Existing links to the Chancery Guide will remain in content until a replacement is released. 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

This Practice Note provides illustrative decisions of cases in which applications to adjourn a trial have been considered by the court. The Practice Note is set out in the form of tables, with the first containing examples of cases in which the trial was adjourned and the second setting out those where the court refused to adjourn trial. For guidance on the general principles applied by the courts when faced with an application to adjourn a trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial. Trial adjourned—general Case details and analysis Grounds of the adjournment application Summary of decision Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L. v Glencore Plc [2026] EWHC 1328 (Comm) This concerned substantial overlap with a related criminal prosecution which was due to be heard after the first trial (in a split trial civil claim). The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) sought certain safeguards in relation to the conduct of ‘Trial 1’. The first defendant, Glencore, made applications for witness summons in respect of two individuals (A and B). A and B opposed the witness summons applications and sought an adjournment

The deferral or postponement of a hearing.

Employment analysis: Where the respondent’s representative became concerned that he was not fit to give evidence and participate in the hearing, in circumstances where the respondent was elderly and had previously had a stroke, the employment tribunal erred in not allowing the application for an adjournment of the hearing to enable the instruction of a medical expert to assess the respondent’s capacity to give evidence. The employment tribunal erred by (1) failing to take into account the principles in the Equal Treatment Bench Book in relation to incapacity, (2) asking the respondent direct questions about his state of health and his memory, and (3) making unfair findings against the consultant representing the respondent that he may not have taken proper instructions or that his concerns were not genuine, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Dispute Resolution analysis: On an application to adjourn a trial or other hearing on the grounds that a witness is unable to attend due to illness the court needs to answer two questions. The first of these is—is the witness genuinely disabled temporarily from attending court to give evidence. If the answer to this is affirmative, then the second question is—would it be fair to hold the applicant party to the trial date having regard to the importance of the evidence of the witness to the applicant party’s case and the desirability of the witness’s evidence being tested under cross examination before the trial judge. If the ensuing trial would not be a fair trial by reason of the absence of the witness, then the trial should be adjourned unless such adjournment would cause injustice to the other parties that cannot be compensated for in costs. On an appeal from the refusal of an adjournment where it is established that the witness is temporarily disabled from attending court, the question for the Court of Appeal is whether the judge’s decision was fair, not whether his decision was within the wide ambit of a discretion. Nevertheless, there may well be more than one fair outcome of such an application and the Court of Appeal will not weigh competing fair outcomes. Written by David Fisher, barrister and associate member, at New Square Chambers.

To adjudicate is to hear and determine a legal dispute and deliver a binding decision, usually after considering evidence and legal submissions from the parties. In everyday legal practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the term is used broadly for the exercise of judicial or quasi‑judicial decision‑making by courts, tribunals and certain decision‑makers.“Adjudicate” and “adjudication” are descriptive terms rather than precise statutory concepts, though particular procedures are defined in legislation. A key example is statutory construction adjudication (eg under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in the UK and the Construction Contracts Act 2013 in Ireland), where an adjudicator gives a temporarily binding decision on payment or contractual disputes.Courts frequently refer to their role in “adjudicating” issues of fact, law or jurisdiction, including in civil, criminal, administrative and insolvency proceedings. Tribunals, regulators and disciplinary bodies are also said to adjudicate complaints, appeals or claims.Across the UK and Ireland the core idea is consistent: adjudication involves an impartial decision‑maker, a defined dispute, procedural fairness, and a reasoned determination intended to resolve the matter, subject to any rights of review or appeal.

A method of dispute resolution devised, originally, for use in the construction industry

Adjudication is a dispute resolution process.