Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Avacade Ltd & Ors

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Avacade Ltd & Ors

The application for adjournment is dismissed because, although the third defendant suffers from serious mental health issues, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that he is unable to participate in the trial in any capacity. The case involves few disputed facts, much can be resolved by documents, and accommodations can be made for his participation. The public interest in timely resolution, the advanced stage of proceedings, and the risk that the condition will not resolve even with delay outweigh the reasons for adjournment.

Parties
Claimant: The Financial Conduct Authority; First Defendant: Avacade Limited (in liquidation); Second Defendant: Alexandra Associates (U.K.) Limited; Third Defendant: Craig Stanley Lummis; Fourth Defendant: Lee Edward Lummis; Fifth Defendant: Raymond George Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Trial
Outcome
Application for adjournment dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Medical Incapacity, Financial Services and Markets Act, Litigants in Person, Right to Fair Trial
Civil Procedure Financial Regulation Adjournment of Trial Medical Incapacity Financial Services and Markets Act Litigants in Person Right to Fair Trial

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant

Avacade Limited (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Alexandra Associates (U.K.) Limited

Second Defendant

Craig Stanley Lummis

Third Defendant

Lee Edward Lummis

Fourth Defendant

Raymond George Fox

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned due to the third defendant's medical incapacity
  2. 2 Whether a fair trial is possible in the absence of the third defendant
  3. 3 The adequacy and weight of medical evidence supporting adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment is dismissed because, although the third defendant suffers from serious mental health issues, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that he is unable to participate in the trial in any capacity. The case involves few disputed facts, much can be resolved by documents, and accommodations can be made for his participation. The public interest in timely resolution, the advanced stage of proceedings, and the risk that the condition will not resolve even with delay outweigh the reasons for adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment dismissed

Orders

  • Trial to proceed as scheduled
  • Fairness to the third defendant to be kept under review during trial; possible future adjournment against him alone if necessary