Summary

It was not appropriate to adjourn the trial of a bank's application for an order committing the defendant for contempt of court. If the time for service of the defence was extended the defendant would have adequate time to prepare.

Facts

The applicant (X) applied to adjourn the hearing of an application by the respondent bank (B) for an order committing X for contempt of court.

B had applied for a committal order following X's alleged breaches of a freezing order. Directions were subsequently given which provided for X to serve his evidence by September 30, 2011 and for a two-week trial commencing on November 28, 2011.

Held

X had had adequate time to prepare his defence to B's evidence. If the time for the service of X's evidence was extended until October 14, 2011 X would have sufficient time to prepare his defence for the contempt allegations. As such it would be inappropriate to order an adjournment.

Application refused