Has had


Senior Member
Inzamam-ul-Haq's disciplinary hearing, originally set for Friday, has had to be postponed because of the unavailability of the ICC's chief match referee, Ranjan Madugalle. "The difficulty relates to the availability of Madugalle to chair the hearing as he is dealing with a private and personal matter that requires his urgent attention," explained Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive.
Madugalle left the England-Pakistan series after the third Test to attend to a situation at home in Colombo - something that was scheduled prior to the start of the series - and Mike Procter was appointed to officiate in the final game.

It would be fine to say the hearing has to be postponed because of the unavailability of Ranjan Madugalle.

Why is it necessary to say has had to be postponed? Is it a present perfect sentence.
Your comments, please.
  • This is such a subtle nuance of meaning that I wouldn't worry about it. Both "had" and "has had" are perfectly correct.
    I don't think the difference is that subtle. The present tense says that it is necessary to do something, but it hasn't actually been done yet. The present perfect says that it was necessary and has been done.

    Edit: Brian, you're right, "had" and "has had" are very close in meaning. But Oros suggested using "has" instead.
    "Has to be postponed" would only be right if used at the time of the postponement.

    It isn't "necessary" (as Brian P already mentioned) and indeed I think the simple past is used more often in these cases. I guess they used present perfect because both the reason for the olbligatory postpenement and the postponement itself happened in the past and still exist (Mr. (?) Ranjan Madugalle is still unavailable so there's no new day set for the hearing)
    I think the present perfect is used here to highlight the fact that the decision made is very close to the present time and it will have an effect on the near future.