A High Court judge has refused to adjourn the three-day trial in a claim where Leigh Day is accused of making unauthorised disbursements from a settlement fund in a £55 million case. The Nigerian claimants argued they had not been given formal notice of the trial date.

The firm denies all allegations against it. It acted for the Bodo community and other residents of the Niger Delta in a case against Shell following oil spills in 2008 and 2009. The claim was settled in 2014 with Shell agreeing to pay £55m in damages and a remediation programme. The settlement was split with £35m for claims by individual citizens in Bodo and £20m for the claim on behalf of the community.

The claim brought against Leigh Day, which is still acting for the community in the enforcement of the remediation process, alleges that unathorised disbursements of £6m were made from the community damages settlement funds to an NGO and four Nigerian legal practices.

Leigh Day argues it has at all times acted lawfully and the claimants do not have the right to bring the claim as a representative action.

Tiki Emezie, a solicitor advocate acting for the claimants, today applied for an adjournment of the preliminary issue trial on the first day of the trial. He told the court the claimants had not been served notice of the trial, witnesses were ill and unable to attend and that the experts still had not engaged with each other.

He accepted that the claimants had been aware of a ‘window’ for trial from 8 July until 15 July since summer last year but argued no actual notice had been given.

Asked by Andrew Twigger KC sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division, if the claimants were in a position to call witnesses if the adjournment was not granted, Emezie said: ‘No, my instructions are only related to this application.’

Michael Pooles KC, for Leigh Day, said: ‘When one comes to consider the application being brought today [for an adjournment], the conduct is wholly inexplicable and does not attract any sympathy. As I stand here at this moment those on this side of the room have no idea who or whom may or may not be called, if anyone. That is a total failure to engage and address consel requirements.’

He told the court if an adjournment for later in the year was granted, the ‘costs thrown away’ would be around £93,000.

He added: ‘It is difficult to conceive of a case where a party has come to court with less regard to its obligations to the court and there is nothing that the claimant can hang on to as demonstrating a fundamental basis to which is has any entitlement to the relief it seeks this morning.’

Refusing the application to adjourn the trial until later in the year, the judge said the claimants had been ‘fully alive’ to the trial date and ‘parties have been working towards that trial ever since’.

He added: ‘There is no excuse for not having counsel available and indeed your firm have confirmed counsel was available when first asked. I do not consider the court has been given proper explanation as to why this adjournments has been sought and I am not prepared to make it.’

He added the ‘maximum indulgence’ he was prepared to allow was to adjourn the trial's start to tomorrow (Tuesday).