The Adjournment Application at the First Case Management Hearing

Deal with the bundle first, before anything else. The worst outcome is being caught out mid-submission. Stand up and say, politely and immediately: 'Sir, before I begin, I should tell the court that I received the bundle at 21:50 last night. I have not been able to check the pagination, and a medical record I expected to see appears to be missing. I may need a short time to read anything handed up.' That is not an apology for the other side's default - it protects your client and preserves the point for any later costs argument. If a document is genuinely needed for your submissions, ask for five minutes rather than bluffing.

Then structure the opposition in three propositions. Introduce yourself, identify who you appear for, and say clearly that the application is opposed. Then signal the shape: 'There are three points: first, no prejudice to the defendant that an adjournment would cure; second, real and irrecoverable prejudice to the claimant; third, the timetable can accommodate the defendant's difficulty without losing the trial date.'

Give the judge a route through the documents. Hand up a one-page chronology and a short list of the three documents you rely on, in order. Do not take the judge to a bundle that is not paginated properly; read the key passages aloud instead, or give references by date.

Handle the letter when you get to it. Do not react to it before it is read. When it is, ask that it be marked and note aloud that it is a letter from a secretary, not a statement from the expert, and that it does not explain what steps have been taken to find a replacement.

Tone. The judge has already expressed a view. Do not fight the remark; agree with the part that is true ('the case has been slow, though not since March, and not on my side') and then move to the real question, which is not what the defendant deserves but whether there can be a fair and effective trial in six weeks.

Recognise it for what it is. The question is an invitation to agree, and it is also a test of whether you will overreach. A good advocate answers it honestly and gives the court a principled reason to do the right thing rather than the convenient thing.

A possible answer, in substance: 'Sir, I understand the attraction of that course, and my client would not complain about the delay. But I would ask the court to consider three matters. First, refusing the adjournment does not produce a trial on 3 November; it produces a trial in which one party has no expert evidence, which will either be unfair or will collapse on the day and cost everyone more. Second, the consequences fall on my client as well: a trial that is unfair may be appealed, and a wasted trial date costs court time and my client's costs. Third, the court's objective is to deal with the case justly and at proportionate cost - the proportionate course is to protect the trial date by controlling the expert evidence, rather than losing it.'

Then offer alternatives, because a judge who is given no option takes the one on the table.

• A guillotine: expert evidence to be served by a fixed date, with no extension, and the expert to be made available for cross-examination on the day.
• A split trial: liability first, with quantum and medical evidence later. This may well suit your client.
• A conditional adjournment: the trial date retained, with a short, tightly defined adjournment only in the event that the replacement expert cannot report by a specified date.

Take instructions. Before offering any of these, ask your client whether proceeding without the defendant's expert evidence is actually to her advantage. If it is, say so to the court rather than pretending otherwise; judges respect candour and it protects you on costs. If it is not, explain why, so that the court is not left thinking you are playing games. Finally, ask for the claimant's costs thrown away by any adjournment, to be assessed or agreed.

Buy time and read it properly. Ask the court for two minutes, or for the application to stand down briefly. Do not comment on a document you have not read.

Test it, calmly and in sequence.

1. What does it actually say? It is a letter from a secretary, not a statement from the expert, and it is hearsay. If it says only that the expert 'is no longer able to act', that is not an explanation of why, when he withdrew or what notice he gave. Note the gaps rather than attacking the document.
2. Is it verified? Ask whether there is a signed statement or correspondence from the expert himself, and whether the defendant has exhibited the withdrawal letter or the firm's booking records.
3. Is it complete? The letter will not show what steps have been taken to find a replacement. Ask when the search began, who was approached, what they said and why no report is possible in six weeks when the trial is six weeks away. A single letter from a secretary rarely answers any of that.
4. Does it deal with the alternatives? Ask whether the expert could give evidence remotely, or whether an expert in the same field could read the existing records and report within a shorter time, or whether the parties could agree a single joint expert to report on the narrow issue.

Then propose a course that protects your client. Invite the court to direct a short, signed statement from the expert within seven days dealing with withdrawal, attempts at replacement and the earliest possible reporting date, and to adjourn the application, not the trial, to a date shortly after that statement is due. That is a constructive answer: it does not hand the defendant the adjournment it wants, it does not force the court into an unfair refusal, and it puts the evidential burden where it belongs.

Watch the trap. The letter is the defendant's weak point, so it is tempting to spend your time demolishing it. Resist that. Spend your time on the prejudice to the claimant and on the alternatives, because that is what the judge has to decide.