Understanding part-heard hearings in civil litigation

Written by Yema Raufi

What is a part-heard hearing?

A part-heard hearing is a court case that begins but cannot be concluded in a single sitting. As a result, it must continue at a later date – usually before the same judge.

Part-heard hearings differ from:

• Reserved judgments: where the hearing is completed, but the judgment is still pending.
• Adjourned hearings: where proceedings have not yet begun.

Part-heard hearings can arise in any area of law, including civil litigation, criminal law, and family matters – essentially wherever the case requires more time than initially allocated.

How are part-heard hearings managed?

Although the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not contain specific provisions dealing solely with part-heard hearings, judges are granted broad case management powers. These enable the court to manage proceedings flexibly and fairly, ensuring the parties’ rights to a just hearing are preserved.

In practice, the procedural steps are usually as follows:

1. The judge determines that the case cannot be concluded within the allocated time.
2. The court formally orders an adjournment.
3. The case is marked as “part-heard” in the court system.
4. A new hearing date is listed – often the earliest available slot.

Potential implications for parties

While sometimes necessary, part-heard hearings can create practical and legal challenges for the parties involved:

• Increased legal costs: Relisting a matter for a further hearing may lead to higher fees, particularly for representation and preparation.
• Procedural disadvantage: One party may inadvertently gain an advantage through the delay – such as additional time to reassess their case or submit new evidence – which can raise concerns of procedural fairness.

Common reasons for part-hearing

Despite the challenges, part-heard hearings are often unavoidable due to:

Time constraints: the court allocates a specific amount of time for each case that is heard. If the matter is complex, therefore requiring additional time for the issues to be addressed, then it will be scheduled to resume at a later date. 

Additional evidence required: the court allocates a specific amount of time for each case that is heard. If the matter requires additional time for the issues to be addressed, then it will be scheduled to resume at a further hearing.

Unforeseen circumstances: There are unexpected events that can occur during a hearing which prevent the case from completing within the scheduled time. An example is judicial illness, resulting in a judge being unavailable to hear the case to its conclusion, therefore requiring commencement at a later date.

Impact on social housing providers

Part-heard hearings can present significant challenges for social housing providers. These hearings, where evidence remains unfinished, or the court is unable to deliver a judgment at the conclusion of a hearing, often result in increased legal costs, repeated involvement from housing officers and witnesses, and delays to vital enforcement actions. Matters such as anti-social behaviour (ASB), possession proceedings, and rent recovery are particularly affected. These delays have a tangible adverse impact on victims and communities. In ASB cases, residents may remain exposed to ongoing harm as the perpetrator’s behaviour continues unchecked until a final order is granted by the court.

Managing the impact of part-heard hearings

Part-heard hearings reflect both the inherent unpredictability of litigation and the strain on an overburdened court system. While many of these factors lie beyond a landlord’s control, social housing providers can take proactive steps to mitigate the disruption caused by adjourned proceedings. These include:

Proactive case management

Part-heard hearings inevitably delay final outcomes, but the period between hearings can still be used effectively. Social housing providers can focus on narrowing the issues in dispute and addressing specific legal arguments raised, which can help reduce court time and associated costs when the case resumes. Providers should also actively consider whether settlement discussions or alternative dispute resolution may be appropriate to resolve matters more efficiently. Crucially, where a trial date has not been set following a part-heard hearing, landlords should press the court for relisting to avoid undue delay and maintain momentum in the proceedings.

Support for victims

Maintaining communication with affected residents is essential. Keeping victims informed about legal proceedings helps manage expectations and shows that the landlord remains engaged, even during delays. Where there is a risk of ongoing harm, providers should offer practical support such as in-person visits to check on wellbeing, reassess risk, and provide reassurance. Where appropriate, residents should also be referred to specialist agencies for additional support, including trauma-informed services.

Conclusion

Part-heard hearings are an increasingly common challenge for social housing providers navigating the legal system, particularly given judicial availability and congested court listings. Cases involving ASB, safeguarding, and possession are especially susceptible to such delays. For this reason, providers must not treat the period between hearings as a hiatus, but rather as a continuation of the case. By actively engaging with residents, considering legal arguments and/or settlement options, and providing visible support, landlords can strengthen their position when proceedings resume. Such actions signal to both the court and residents that the provider is acting reasonably, responsibly, and in accordance with its legal and social obligations.