The parties entered into an agreement with respect to the quantum of damages in an Action for medical malpractice, which included interest to the date of that agreement. After the parties entered into the agreement, the Trial of the matter was adjourned for nearly three years before it resumed, and liability was ultimately determined. The Court was called upon to determine whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to further interest from the date of the agreement to the date of Judgment.

The Court considered which party was responsible for the Trial adjournment, and whether that was a relevant consideration with respect to interest. In reviewing the procedural history, Lema J. noted that the Trial was adjourned after the Defendants provided Notices of Objection to the Plaintiffs’ expert witness under Rule 5.36 on the eve of Trial. The Defendants took the position that the adjournment was granted at the request of the Plaintiffs, and as such it was their responsibility. The Plaintiffs took the position that the adjournment was only requested due to the Defendants’ failure to provide reasonable notice of their objection.

In reviewing Rule 5.36, the Court noted it requires a party to provide reasonable notice and, upon a further review of relevant caselaw, the Court outlined that the purpose of reasonable notice is to prevent surprise and unnecessary adjournments. As such, although the Plaintiffs themselves requested the adjournment, they were justified in doing so in light of the potential prejudice that could have occurred in losing the chance to address the late objection. Fundamentally, the adjournment was the responsibility of the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs were entitled to pre-judgment interest on the amounts for the time following the date of the agreement.