The plaintiffs moved to vary an existing litigation timetable and extend the deadline to set the action down for trial to avoid administrative dismissal.
The underlying commercial action alleged breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and losses exceeding $4 million arising from trading activities and alleged unauthorized access to computerized data.
The defendants had previously refused to advance litigation steps pending determination of their motions for security for costs, which were ultimately dismissed, causing the timetable to become unworkable.
The court held that litigation timetables require cooperation from all parties and may be varied where unforeseen procedural events and party conduct render compliance impossible.
Finding that the plaintiffs had acted reasonably and that the defendants’ strategy contributed to the delay, the court granted the extension and varied the timetable.
