Riverland Fruit Co-op Ltd (Receivers & Managers) v ICM Investments Pty Ltd No. Scciv-02-213

[2003] SASC 151

RIVERLAND FRUIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) v ICM INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
[2003] SASC 151

Civil

1. DEBELLE J           The court does not fix trial dates by any whim. They are dates which are intended to be adhered to. The fact that parties are negotiating is not, standing alone, necessarily a reason why an adjournment should be granted. If a date has been fixed for the hearing of the matter, the matter should proceed on that date. The parties should arrange their negotiations so that they can be concluded before the trial date, rather than requiring a postponement of it.

2. Trial dates are fixed not only for the convenience of the parties to the litigation, but also bearing in mind the demands of other litigants who also seek to have their actions heard.

3. It is for those reasons that the court would, ordinarily speaking, require the parties, notwithstanding that they are negotiating, to present their respective cases at the appointed time. If the court does not adhere to these dates, an adjournment will necessarily involve interruption to the list and require other matters to be heard later than would otherwise have been possible.

4. In this matter I have regard to the fact that the plaintiff is in liquidation. The defendant did not make an offer to settle until quite recently. The liquidator must consult with his committee of inspection in relation to the steps in the litigation. Plainly, that duty is the more obvious when an offer has been made. If it were not for that fact, I think I might have required the parties to go on with this litigation.

5. In all the circumstances, I am prepared to adjourn the hearing. I will adjourn it to a date two months hence. I am informed that that is the time necessary to enable these negotiations to be concluded. It seems, on its face, a long time. However, I am told that issues in addition to those the subject of this litigation are also the subject of the negotiations.

6. The matter will be listed for mention on 22 July. The parties can then report as to the outcome of their negotiations. If the matter has been negotiated to a successful conclusion the parties can be congratulated for that. However, if the matter has not satisfactorily concluded the parties will simply have to take their place into the list. If that results in delay, it is a delay which lies at the door of the respective parties, not at the door of the court. The court was ready. The door was open. The parties chose not to enter through that door and have their action heard. They must bear the consequences.

7. I require that the remarks be sent by the solicitors for the parties to their respective clients.

8. Not without a great deal of hesitation, I grant the application. I make the following orders.

   1.Adjourning this action to 9.00am on 22 July 2003 for mention.

   2.There will be no order as to costs.