Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc & Ors v Hussain [2022] EWHC 353 (Ch) (08 February 2022)

Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc & Ors v Hussain [2022] EWHC 353 (Ch) (08 February 2022)

The defendant, Mr Hussain, had proper notice of the proceedings, ample opportunity to prepare and seek representation, and his absence was a deliberate and calculated choice. No credible medical or other justification was provided for his non-attendance. Further adjournment would unduly prejudice the claimants and the administration of justice. The trial should proceed in his absence and no further adjournment is warranted.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 353 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc and others; Defendant: Rizwan Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Interlocutory Decision on Adjournment and Proceeding in Absence of Defendant
Outcome
Application for further adjournment refused; trial to proceed in absence of defendant.
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Adjournment, Service of Documents, Right to Legal Representation, Remote Hearings, Bench Warrant
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal Proceedings Adjournment Service of Documents Right to Legal Representation Remote Hearings Bench Warrant

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc and others

Claimant

Rizwan Hussain

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Interlocutory Decision on Adjournment and Proceeding in Absence of Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of a committal application should proceed in the absence of the defendant
  2. 2 Whether a further adjournment should be granted to allow the defendant to obtain legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, Mr Hussain, had proper notice of the proceedings, ample opportunity to prepare and seek representation, and his absence was a deliberate and calculated choice. No credible medical or other justification was provided for his non-attendance. Further adjournment would unduly prejudice the claimants and the administration of justice. The trial should proceed in his absence and no further adjournment is warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for further adjournment refused; trial to proceed in absence of defendant.

Orders

  • The trial of the committal application will continue in the absence of Mr Hussain.
  • Application for further adjournment is refused.