Adjournment refused as trial to proceed with existing expert evidence following unavailability of plaintiff’s economist

The High Court refused the plaintiff's application for an adjournment to allow the instruction of a new expert witness after its principal economist became unexpectedly unavailable to give oral evidence. The court held that, while the plaintiff was not at fault and the difficulty was unfortunate, the interests of justice favoured proceeding with the trial based on the existing expert reports and written statements. Key factors in the decision included the advanced stage of the nearly seven-year-old litigation, the risk of procedural disruption from introducing a new expert, the sufficiency of written expert material already before the court, and the defendant’s waiver of cross-examination rights. The court found that potential prejudice to the plaintiff did not outweigh the need for the prompt and efficient continuation and completion of the proceedings.