No Time-Out for Twenty-Year Legal Saga: Judge Rejects Bid to Delay Multimillion-Dollar Family Trial

📝 Introduction

In the recent decision of Jess & Jess (No 16) [2025] FedCFamC1F 139, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dealt a strong message about the finality of trial fixtures in complex, protracted litigation. Justice Wilson dismissed an application brought just three months before trial to vacate a long-scheduled, month-long proceeding involving intricate equitable and financial claims. This IRAC-style analysis breaks down the Court’s reasoning, legal principles invoked, and broader implications for litigants and legal practitioners handling mega-litigation.

⚖️ Facts and Issues

Facts

• The matter, under file number MLF 3444 of 2006, involves a 20-year-old complex family dispute with multiple parties, including an applicant (Ms Jess), a deceased’s estate, represented third parties, and intervening bankruptcy trustees.
• A trial was scheduled over a year in advance to begin on 2 June 2025.
• Multiple directions hearings confirmed trial preparations were on track.
• Ms Jess sought to vacate the trial citing:
• Delayed and piecemeal disclosure from other parties (17 tranches of documents from 2022 to Feb 2025).
• Inability to finalise pleadings and identify all necessary parties and claims, including potential Barnes v Addy claims.
• Escalating legal fees and prejudice due to incomplete discovery.

Issue

• Whether the Court should grant the applicant's late request to vacate a trial date that had been set over a year in advance, particularly in light of:
• Her claim of procedural unfairness due to non-disclosure.
• Broader judicial efficiency and resource considerations.

📚 Application of Law to the Facts

Justice Wilson assessed the application in the context of:

• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, and
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, which emphasise the overarching purpose of ensuring the just, efficient, timely and cost-effective resolution of disputes (para [19]).
• Cited Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175, a High Court decision that underscores the significance of preserving trial dates and the broader implications of adjournments on court resources and public confidence in the judicial system (para [12]).

Wilson J noted that:

• Disclosure delays, though real, had been long-standing and were well known to all parties.
• The parties had not sufficiently utilised case management tools (e.g., weekly directions, timetabling).
• The applicant had previously affirmed her readiness for trial, and her change of position lacked sufficient justification at this late stage (paras [1]–[4], [14]–[16]).
• The risk of losing trial momentum, court resource wastage, and backlog implications far outweighed the applicant’s arguments for fairness (para [15]).

🔍 Analysis of the Judgment and Judicial Reasoning

Justice Wilson’s ex tempore reasons reflected a pragmatic and systemic lens:

• Consistency and Commitment: He emphasised that the parties, particularly the applicant, had consistently affirmed trial readiness. Changing course now, after the system had allocated scarce judicial time, was untenable (paras [1]–[4], [16]).
• Prejudice and Delay: Though disclosure remained incomplete, Wilson J believed that three months of dedicated effort—via intensive weekly case management and strategic deployment of legal teams—could mitigate the impact (paras [13], [17], [18]).
• Systemic Impact: Drawing heavily from Aon v ANU, the judge stressed the public interest dimension of trial scheduling. Vacating a one-month trial affects other litigants, judicial resourcing, and public trust (paras [12], [15]).
• Case Maturity and Duration: With the litigation spanning two decades, the judge showed little tolerance for further delay, especially when driven by internal inefficiencies and lack of early case strategy (para [15]).
• Judicial Strategy: Rather than granting the adjournment, Wilson J implemented a weekly directions regime to force progress, cooperation, and accountability (para [18]).

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

This decision is a clear warning: in long-running, document-heavy litigation, late applications to vacate trial dates will be viewed with extreme skepticism. Justice Wilson's judgment reinforces that:

• Parties must diligently and proactively use the court's case management tools.
• Disclosure delays are not a carte blanche for adjournments.
• Courts are increasingly focused on efficient, proportionate justice, not perfection.
• Legal teams in mega-litigation must treat trial preparation as an all-consuming, well-resourced project—excuses won’t work as the trial date approaches.

The practical implication? Start early, stay ready, and never assume an adjournment is a given—especially when the case clocks in at 20 years.