Anonymised and Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a Chancery Division decision concerning ownership and a transfer of approximately 19 acres of land. The Plaintiff brought a claim to set aside a transfer executed in August 2015 that conveyed the disputed lands to the Appellant. The Plaintiff alleged that she never intended to sell the lands and that the Appellant procured the transfer by false representation, undue influence and related equitable grounds. The original trial judge (Judge McBride) found for the Plaintiff and granted equitable rescission of the transfer; an order of 23 May 2025 rescinded the transfer, ordered registration of the relevant folios in the Plaintiff and the Defendant's names as tenants in common, required the Appellant to pay associated registration costs, and ordered the Appellant to deliver vacant possession within three weeks.

The remedies hearing to determine monetary consequences and other details followed the finding on liability. There were delays and multiple reviews caused in part by the Appellant's medical and attendance issues. Medical reports were procured by and on behalf of the Appellant. The trial judge proceeded with the remedies hearing on 6 February 2025 in the Appellant's absence, having concluded (on the material before her) that the Appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to provide medical evidence and that the medical evidence then before the court indicated the Appellant could participate remotely. Subsequent hearings and reviews culminated in the final order of 23 May 2025. The Appellant appealed, challenging (inter alia) the fairness of the remedies hearing and the judge's handling of medical evidence and adjustments for a litigant in person.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant was afforded a fair trial at the remedies hearing in accordance with Article 6 ECHR, having regard to his medical condition and attendance difficulties.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to adjourn the remedies hearing on medical grounds and whether that refusal represented an improper exercise of discretion.
3. Whether the judge failed to make reasonable adjustments for the Appellant as a litigant in person and for any disabilities he claimed.
4. Whether the appeal should be permitted to be amended to challenge the earlier substantive credibility and factual findings made by the trial judge (i.e. whether the Appellant could resurrect an appeal against the original liability judgment).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the judge's conduct during the remedies proceedings negatively impacted his ability to defend and present his case and that this resulted in unfairness (a breach of Article 6).
• He relied on the medical evidence he provided to the court and argued the judge did not give that evidence proper weight before proceeding with the remedies hearing in his absence.
• The Appellant sought to expand the appeal to challenge the substantive liability judgment from 10 June 2022, on the basis that the judge's factual findings were perverse and wrong.
• As an alternative remedy, he requested that part or all of the matter be remitted to a different judge for rehearing.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued the Appellant's claimed ill-health was a tactic to frustrate the progression of the case and to delay justice. She asserted the court had given the Appellant sufficient opportunity to present medical evidence and to make arrangements for participation, including remote attendance.
• The Plaintiff submitted that the judge had acted carefully, had considered the medical material, and had lawfully exercised her discretion in refusing an adjournment on 6 February 2025 because the medical evidence then before the court did not justify preventing the hearing from going ahead.
• The Plaintiff distinguished the facts of this case from the authorities relied upon by the Appellant, emphasising that the onus is on the applicant for an adjournment to prove the need for it and that such applications are fact-sensitive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal (Judges Keegan, Treacy and Colton) conducted a focused, stepwise analysis:

1. Scope of the appeal and amendment: The court began by analysing procedural rules on amendment of the notice of appeal. It refused the Appellant's attempt to expand the appeal to challenge the original substantive liability findings (the 2022 judgment). The court emphasised the high threshold for appellate interference in credibility findings (citing McGraddie) and noted the long delay and lack of prompt challenge to the liability decision. The attempted amendment to resurrect that ground was rejected.
2. Identification of remaining live ground: The court confined the live issue to whether the Appellant received a fair hearing at the remedies stage and whether the trial judge improperly refused an adjournment on medical grounds.
3. Legal framework: The court identified Bilta as the leading authority on adjournment applications due to illness and distilled the relevant guiding principles: fairness is paramount; assessment is fact-sensitive; party illness is usually highly material; an adjournment should be granted if refusal would render the trial unfair unless the injustice to the other side is irremediable.
4. Assessment of facts against principles: The court reviewed the extensive chronology and medical material. It noted that the trial judge had made a reasoned decision to proceed on 6 February 2025, concluding the Appellant had been given opportunities to present medical evidence and that the medical evidence then before the court indicated the Appellant could participate remotely. The court also observed that the Appellant's conduct (failing to attend, not making a formal adjournment application in good time, providing some uninformative medical notes, and the late production of additional evidence) weakened his position.
5. Identification of omission by the trial judge: Despite those factors, the appellate court found a critical omission. The court identified that the trial judge did not expressly take into account a specific operative recommendation in the principal medical report (the recommendation that the Appellant attend remotely only after a short period of stabilising treatment). The appellate court concluded that this omission amounted to the judge leaving out a relevant consideration when exercising her discretion to refuse an adjournment.
6. Conclusion on fairness and remedy: The appellate court held that, because a relevant consideration (the medical report's specific recommendation that some limited time be allowed for short-term stabilising intervention prior to attendance) was not taken into account, the Appellant's third limb of appeal (failure to take medical evidence properly into account and proceeding in his absence) succeeded to a limited extent. The court emphasised the limited and discrete nature of the successful ground: it related only to the question of monetary remedy following rescission, not to the liability findings or the remainder of the order.
7. Practical directions: The court directed that the monetary remedy issue (identified as paragraph 6 in the earlier order) be reheard by a different judge, that both parties file affidavits within seven days setting out positions on the monetary remedy, and that a directions hearing be fixed (24 October 2025) with a short hearing to follow in November 2025. The remainder of the order was to remain in force (including obligations to deliver vacant possession and to proceed with registration) and costs would be addressed subsequently.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court of Appeal allowed a discrete part of the appeal and quashed only the portion of the remedies order concerning monetary relief (identified as paragraph 6 of the order) so that this narrow issue may be reheard by a different judge. The remainder of the trial judge's order, including rescission and registration directions and the order for vacant possession, was preserved and remains in force.

Implications and direct consequences:

• The Appellant must deliver vacant possession of the lands to the Plaintiff and the Defendant within three weeks of the appellate order (i.e. as required by the existing order).
• The registration corrections ordered by the trial judge can proceed (the relevant folios are to be registered in the Plaintiff and the Defendant's names as tenants in common in equal shares) and the Appellant remains liable for legal and registration costs associated with registration as ordered.
• The discrete issue of monetary remedy following rescission (whether any payment is due to the Appellant or sums due to the Plaintiff) is remitted for rehearing before another judge. Both parties must file affidavits within seven days setting out their positions on the monetary remedy. A directions hearing is set for 24 October 2025, and a short substantive hearing is anticipated in November 2025.
• The court will hear the parties further on costs at an appropriate juncture.
• No broader overturning of the trial judge's credibility assessments or liability findings was made; the appellate court expressly declined the Appellant's attempt to re-open the substantive judgment and emphasised the narrowness of its intervention.

Note: This summary is strictly confined to the information contained in the provided opinion and uses anonymised placeholders in place of personally identifiable information and certain organisations, in accordance with the instruction provided with the opinion.