Ashley v Musa & Anor [2025] EWHC 1751 (Ch) (04 June 2025)

Ashley v Musa & Anor [2025] EWHC 1751 (Ch) (04 June 2025)

The petitioner failed to provide sufficient, up-to-date, and particularised medical evidence to justify a stay or adjournment. The lateness of the application, proximity to trial, and prior extensions weighed against further delay. The Equality Act 2010 s.29 and s.149 do not apply to judicial functions; s.15 was not engaged as the refusal was not because of the disability, and in any event, refusal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (fair trial).

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1751 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Cerys Ashley; First Respondent: Benedict Cela Musa; Second Respondent: CWM Care Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Interlocutory Application for Stay or Adjournment Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for stay or adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Adjournment, Stay of Proceedings, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Amendment of Pleadings
Company Law Civil Procedure Equality Law Unfair Prejudice Adjournment Stay of Proceedings Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cerys Ashley

Petitioner

Benedict Cela Musa

First Respondent

CWM Care Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Interlocutory Application for Stay or Adjournment Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a three-month stay or adjournment of proceedings due to petitioner's disabilities (dyslexia, anxiety, depression)
  2. 2 Whether the Equality Act 2010 requires the court to grant such a stay or adjournment
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner's application for amendment/disclosure/witness evidence should be entertained at this late stage

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to provide sufficient, up-to-date, and particularised medical evidence to justify a stay or adjournment. The lateness of the application, proximity to trial, and prior extensions weighed against further delay. The Equality Act 2010 s.29 and s.149 do not apply to judicial functions; s.15 was not engaged as the refusal was not because of the disability, and in any event, refusal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (fair trial).

Court Disposition

Application for stay or adjournment refused

Orders

  • No stay granted
  • No adjournment granted