Litigation practitioners should be aware that there have been a number of recent Supreme Court decisions where late adjournments of trial dates have been sought and refused by the Court.
What's on this page?
In one of the decisions, this was despite the fact that the parties had consented to the adjournment. These decisions are a reminder to practitioners that adjournments will not be automatic and will only be granted for good reason.
There is a risk that if an adjournment application is unsuccessful, practitioners may face claims from their clients (if the matter is not ready to proceed to trial and it prejudices the outcome) or for the other parties’ costs of the application.
When can an adjournment be made?
Rule 48.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 provides that the Court may vacate a trial date and give further directions for the conduct of a proceeding.
However, when determining whether to exercise the power in rule 48.06, a Court will also have regard to the requirements under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (in particular, sections 7 and 9). Relevantly, section 9(1) requires the Court to take into account a number of factors in making any order, including:
- The efficient conduct of the business of the Court.
- The efficient use of judicial and administrative resources.
- The timely determination of the proceeding.
Late adjournment applications inevitably result in wasted Court resources and should therefore be avoided.
Recent decisions
In Ferguson v The Corporation of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2024] VSC 550 Forbes J refused an application for an adjournment that was issued five days prior to the trial date. The application was made in order to join two additional defendants despite the plaintiff informing the Court at the final directions hearing that the matter was ready to proceed to trial. Forbes J found that the affidavit in support of the adjournment application did not explain its lateness, or why the position had changed since the final directions hearing and thus refused the application.
In Taylor v Trustees of the Christian Brothers [2025] VSC 25 the plaintiff made an application to adjourn a trial date which was returnable at the final directions hearing. The main basis of the application was that the trial should be adjourned because there may be legislative reform to overturn the High Court decision of Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41. The Court refused the adjournment citing the general principle that cases are not delayed because the outcome of a prospective change in the law might have a bearing on the outcome of a particular trial.
In the most recent decision of Grimmett v Rivdale Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 122 Tsalamandris J dismissed an appeal from Judicial Registrar Baker who refused to adjourn a proceeding by consent. The Court considered that the application was late and the delay was not properly explained. Her honour explained the Court is dealing with many lists experiencing unprecedented growth and numbers of pending cases, without equivalent increases in resources. Wasted trial dates only serve to make the Court’s operations less efficient. In her written reasons her Honour made it clear that the conduct of any proceeding remains in the hands of the Court and not the parties.
Tips
Adjournments will not simply be ’rubber stamped‘ by the Court even if all parties consent.
If an adjournment is likely to be required, practitioners should:
- take care when advising the Court that a matter is ready to proceed to trial. If it is not, say so.
- make any application for an adjournment as promptly as possible. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that the matter will settle as this is outside of practitioner control.
- provide proper affidavit evidence to the Court explaining the reason for the adjournment and the cause of any delay in bringing the application.
