The Plaintiff sought an adjournment of a civil jury Trial which had been set down pursuant to a Case Management Order granted by Justice Tilleman. The Defendants consented to the adjournment, and the Plaintiff relied on Rule 8.6, which permits the Court to adjourn or abandon a Trial date. Tilleman J. noted that the parties’ consent to an adjournment is not necessarily determinative as per Rule 8.6(4). The Court was reluctant to grant the adjournment as considerable judicial resources had already been devoted to the matter and it would be difficult to reschedule a lengthy civil jury Trial. However, Justice Tilleman noted that the efficient administration of justice needed to be weighed against fairness to the parties, which is inherent in Foundational Rule 1.2. Tilleman J. stated that an important consideration was whether a party had been negligent or diligent in advising the Court of any concerns in a timely fashion. As a whole, the evidence suggested that the matter was progressing and this adjournment was not indicative of any intent to delay. The adjournment was granted.