Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Adjournment applications were refused on all grounds except counsel's inability to be ready, which was attributed to defendants' late instruction and lack of proper focus; responsibility for delay rests with defendants, and costs of adjournment and related applications are to be paid by defendants.

Parties
Claimant/applicant in the Contempt Proceedings: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant/respondent to the Contempt Proceedings: Scott Dylan; Defendant/respondent to the Contempt Proceedings: David Samuel Antrobus; Defendant/respondent to the Contempt Proceedings: Jack Mason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Pre Trial Review; Determination of Adjournment Applications
Outcome
Adjournment considered only if suitable date before end of term can be found; otherwise trial proceeds as scheduled. Costs of adjournment and related applications to be paid by defendants.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Legal Aid, Right of Silence, Costs
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Adjournment Legal Aid Right of Silence Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant/applicant in the Contempt Proceedings

Scott Dylan

Defendant/respondent to the Contempt Proceedings

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant/respondent to the Contempt Proceedings

Jack Mason

Defendant/respondent to the Contempt Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Pre Trial Review; Determination of Adjournment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to an adjournment of the contempt trial
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were properly advised regarding Legal Aid and right of silence
  3. 3 Responsibility for delay in instructing solicitors and counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment applications were refused on all grounds except counsel's inability to be ready, which was attributed to defendants' late instruction and lack of proper focus; responsibility for delay rests with defendants, and costs of adjournment and related applications are to be paid by defendants.

Court Disposition

Adjournment considered only if suitable date before end of term can be found; otherwise trial proceeds as scheduled. Costs of adjournment and related applications to be paid by defendants.

Orders

  • Claimant's costs of application for further evidence will be costs in the application.
  • Defendants to pay costs of adjournment, stay applications, costs of today and yesterday, and costs thrown away by adjournment.