Friend MTS Limited v Friend Partnership Limited [2025] EWHC 2471 (Ch)

October 11, 2025

Friend MTS Limited v Friend Partnership Limited [2025] EWHC 2471 (Ch): Stay of Proceedings on Medical Grounds

Introduction

The High Court’s decision in Friend MTS Limited v Friend Partnership Limited [2025] EWHC 2471 (Ch), before Deputy District Judge S Bradshaw sitting in the Business and Property Courts, Business List (ChD), Birmingham, provides helpful clarification on the principles governing applications for a stay of proceedings on medical grounds. The judgment carefully balances the need for reasonable adjustments for parties affected by serious illness against the overriding objective of ensuring cases are dealt with justly and expeditiously.

Background

The claim arose out of a payment of £226,000 plus VAT made by Friend MTS Limited (FMTS), a cybersecurity company, to Friend Partnership Limited (FPL), an accountancy and tax advisory firm. FMTS alleged that the payment was recoverable, either contractually or by way of unjust enrichment. FPL maintained that the payment was properly made, arguing that it related to dilapidations or services rendered.

FMTS issued proceedings in January 2025. FPL served its Defence in April 2025 but failed to comply with subsequent directions, prompting an application for relief from sanction and for a stay of the proceedings on medical grounds.

The application was made on behalf of FPL by its director, Mrs Denise Friend, who had recently undergone chemotherapy for lymphoma. Medical evidence from her consultant, Dr Premini Mahendra, stated that she suffered from fatigue, poor concentration, and impaired cognitive ability, and would be unfit to return to work until January 2026.

FPL contended that Mrs Friend alone possessed the necessary knowledge to instruct solicitors. The other director, Mr Malcolm Friend, was said to lack sufficient knowledge of the relevant events.

FMTS opposed the stay, arguing that Mr Friend was fully capable of providing instructions. It relied on emails and documents demonstrating his involvement in the disputed transactions, noting that he had signed the Defence with a statement of truth. FMTS further submitted that Mrs Friend’s medical condition did not preclude the litigation from progressing, particularly as she had participated in other legal proceedings during the same period.

The Legal Framework

The court’s power to stay proceedings arises under CPR r.3.1(2)(g), which permits the court to stay all or part of a case, and from its inherent jurisdiction to manage proceedings.

Deputy District Judge Bradshaw observed that there is limited authority on stays of proceedings on medical grounds. He applied the stringent approach identified in Financial Conduct Authority v Avacade Ltd [2019] EWHC 1961 (Ch), drawing upon the guidance in Forresters Ketley v Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 324 and Levi v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch).

In Avacade, HHJ Pelling QC considered applications for stays based on psychiatric conditions caused by litigation stress. The court held that such orders require “very clear justification”, as granting a stay risks repeated extensions and undermines access to justice.

In Forresters Ketley, Lewison LJ warned that adjournments are “not simply there for the asking” and that stress occasioned by litigation is rarely sufficient. In Levi v Ellis-Carr, Norris J set out the requirements for medical evidence, including that the medical professional must identify themselves, describe their familiarity with the patient’s condition, provide a diagnosis, explain how the illness prevents participation, and offer a prognosis.

The judge in the present case also referred to the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Overriding Objective, noting that the court must make reasonable adjustments for disabled parties while ensuring fairness to all sides. The defendant had initially sought to rely on the Equality Act 2010 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but those points were not pursued at the hearing.

The Medical Evidence

The medical evidence comprised two letters from Dr Mahendra. She stated that Mrs Friend was unable to engage with lengthy documents or instruct solicitors and would need six months’ recovery time from July 2025.

Counsel for FMTS argued that these letters were not admissible expert evidence because they had not been served in accordance with CPR Part 35. The judge rejected that argument. He held that such medical letters, often termed “Ellis-Carr letters”, are routinely accepted in support of applications for adjournment or stay. The application itself implicitly seeks permission to rely on the evidence, and the letters were sufficiently detailed to satisfy the required standard. The judge described the objection as misconceived and confirmed that such letters are admissible without the need for a separate Part 35 application.

The Court’s Analysis

Deputy District Judge Bradshaw accepted that Mrs Friend was seriously unwell and required a recovery period. However, he emphasised that a stay of proceedings is an exceptional measure requiring very clear justification.

Having reviewed the correspondence and pleadings, the judge found that Mr Malcolm Friend had been substantially involved in the relevant matters and was capable of providing meaningful instructions. The evidence showed his participation in discussions about office expenses, correspondence with FMTS, and authorship of notes concerning the disputed payment.

The Defence, which Mr Friend had signed, also pleaded that both directors were party to the alleged oral agreements said to justify retention of the money. The judge therefore concluded that it was “difficult to sustain an argument” that Mr Friend lacked sufficient knowledge to instruct solicitors or to respond to FMTS’s CPR Part 18 request.

While acknowledging that Mr Friend was also his wife’s carer, the judge held that this justified an extension of time rather than a stay of proceedings. The court therefore applied the Equal Treatment Bench Book by granting reasonable additional time to comply with directions.

The Decision

The court refused FPL’s application for a stay of proceedings. It granted relief from sanction for failure to file the Directions Questionnaire and extended the time for compliance by 14 days from hand-down. FMTS’s application for further information under CPR Part 18 was also granted, with an extended time for response of 28 days from hand-down, to take account of Mr Friend’s caring responsibilities.

Following further correspondence concerning the Friends’ personal circumstances, those time limits were later extended to 28 and 48 days respectively.

Deputy District Judge Bradshaw concluded by wishing Mrs Friend a full recovery, recognising the human dimension of the case alongside the procedural and evidential issues.

Key Points

The judgment confirms:

• A stay of proceedings on medical grounds is an exceptional order that requires clear and specific medical evidence.
• Medical letters need not be formally adduced under CPR Part 35 if they meet the Ellis Carr criteria and are tendered as part of the application.
• The court must make reasonable adjustments for disabled parties but will not allow serious delay if another company officer can provide instructions.
• Reasonable extensions of time may be an appropriate accommodation in place of a full stay.

Conclusion

Friend MTS Limited v Friend Partnership Limited provides a clear and pragmatic statement of the principles governing medical stays. The decision demonstrates the courts’ willingness to accommodate genuine illness while maintaining fairness to the opposing party and ensuring the efficient progress of litigation.