The Court of Appeal addressed the Trial Judge’s decision to deny an adjournment sought under Rule 14.5. The Applicant, Debut Developments (“Debut”), a corporation without legal counsel, requested the adjournment shortly before Trial. The Trial Judge denied the request, emphasizing the age and history of the case, the prejudice that further delay would cause to the Respondents, and the corporation’s continued failure to retain counsel despite prior opportunities and warnings.

The Court of Appeal considered Rule 14.5(1)(b), which provides that permission to appeal is required for “any pre‑trial decision respecting adjournments, time periods or time limits.” Debut was specifically advised of this Rule in a letter from the Court’s Case Management Officer, which noted permission to appeal must be sought as soon as possible, and failure to do so in a timely manner may result in that aspect of the Appeal being dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that Debut failed to obtain such permission, and even if it had, the Trial Judge’s exercise of discretion was grounded in appropriate legal principles and a fair process. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal rejected any claim of procedural unfairness or legal error in denying the adjournment.

The dismissal of Debut’s action was upheld. Because the adjournment was denied and Debut remained unrepresented at Trial, the Trial Judge dismissed the action for want of prosecution. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Court of King’s Bench has inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, including dismissing claims in such circumstances without requiring a formal summary judgment motion. The Appeal was dismissed entirely, and costs were awarded to the respondents under Schedule C, Column 1.