Where an adjournment refusal has been effectively remedied by a subsequent stay, there is no useful purpose in reviewing the refusal order on appeal. Costs orders consequent upon such a refusal can only be challenged by demonstrating Fox v Percy error in the underlying factual findings — that the findings were inconsistent with incontrovertible fact, glaringly improbable, or contrary to compelling inference.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.