A stay of proceedings pauses the entire case, potentially for a significant period, and may require a formal application to the court. An adjournment, by contrast, typically refers to the rescheduling of a specific hearing or procedural step. Adjournments are usually shorter and more limited in scope.
A stay of proceedings temporarily halts a case, often to allow time for a party to recover or resolve an issue that impedes their ability to participate. In medical contexts, this might be due to:
- Serious illness or treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, surgery).
- Mental health conditions affecting cognitive function.
- Physical incapacity preventing attendance or engagement.
For SMEs, where directors or owners are often central to decision-making and litigation strategy, their absence due to illness can significantly affect the ability to instruct solicitors or give evidence.
While both require justification, the threshold for a stay is higher. A stay is considered an exceptional remedy and demands robust evidence, particularly when based on medical grounds. Adjournments may be granted more readily, especially if supported by medical letters or logistical reasons, but still require the court’s discretion and consideration of fairness to all parties.
The courts treat applications for a stay on medical grounds as exceptional. The leading case sets out the applicable principles:
- Exceptional nature: A stay is not granted lightly and requires clear justification.
- Stress alone is insufficient: Stress caused by proceedings is not a valid reason, as it is likely to recur.
- Robust medical evidence is essential: The court requires detailed evidence from a medical professional familiar with the individual, including:
- Diagnosis and its impact on participation.
- Prognosis and expected recovery timeline.
- Specific limitations on ability to engage with legal processes.
Courts must balance the health needs of the affected party with the rights of other parties to timely justice. This means that even if one party is unwell, the court may consider whether others within the organisation can step in. For SMEs, this could involve another director or senior employee taking over litigation responsibilities.
If your business is involved in litigation and a key person becomes ill:
- Act promptly: Notify the court and other parties as soon as possible.
- Gather medical evidence: Ensure it meets the required standard, so it must be detailed, specific, and from a qualified practitioner.
- Assess internal capacity: Consider whether another person can give instructions or attend hearings.
- Explore adjustments: Remote hearings, extended deadlines, or partial stays may be alternatives to a full stay.
In a recent case the High Court considered an application to stay proceedings due to the ill health of a director undergoing chemotherapy. The director claimed she was the only person with sufficient knowledge to instruct solicitors. Medical letters from her consultant detailed her fatigue and cognitive impairment. However, the court refused the stay. It found that another director had adequate knowledge to continue the case, citing his involvement in prior communications and his signing of the defence statement.
For SMEs, litigation can be resource-intensive, and the illness of a key individual can complicate matters further. While the courts are sympathetic to genuine health issues, they also prioritise the efficient administration of justice. You should always seek legal advice early when it becomes apparent that health issues may impact any ongoing litigation.