A trial in a professional negligence claim has been adjourned after leading counsel was taken ill and the High Court found the defendant could not have a fair hearing otherwise.

In Manchester Property Development Holdings & Anor v Kuit Steinart Levy LLP Dame Clare Moulder said she was ‘reluctant to adjourn such a substantial trial’ but found ‘the prejudice to the defendant in refusing an adjournment outweighs the other factors’.

The case centres on a negligence claim against Manchester firm Kuits, which was retained by Stephen Beech to act in connection with the negotiation and agreement of a loan. The claimants, Beech and Beech Holdings, allege Kuits acted in breach of contract and/or negligently causing losses totalling around £32 million. The firm contests the allegations. 

The judgment said the firm’s leading counsel had become unwell and could not appear at the forthcoming trial, listed for 20 January. Referring to additional costs if the trial was adjourned, the judge said she could ‘see no reason…why further significant costs would be incurred’ on an adjournment in relation to the existing evidence when witness and expert evidence was finalised, the claimants’ skeleton was filed and the defendants’ skeleton was in final form.

Read more

She did not accept the claimants’ submission that an adjournment would cause ‘additional costs in the high hundreds of thousands’.

Finding that the case should be adjourned, the judge acknowledged that parties should be on equal footing. She said: ‘I take into account that Kuits is the defendant in this case, which has therefore been obliged to defend itself against a claim brought against it. In my view to force the defendant to proceed with the junior counsel on the current timetable to trial, or even within the current trial window, would be unfair.’