A recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court provides a salient reminder to legal practitioners of their duty to assist the court in the just, expeditious and efficient resolution of the real issues in dispute in civil proceedings. Additionally, the court provides clarification to the principles regarding communications with the court.
In Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock,1 the court acknowledged that the sensible resolution of the proceedings ‘stumbled at the final hurdle’ and resulted in the final orders being made after a regrettable three-month delay.2 The stumble occurred seemingly by a misapprehension of one or more legal practitioners as to what was permissible communication with the court, and a consequent failure for a period of over three months to notify the court that an aspect of the orders had become contentious.3
In making the final orders, the court clarified communication expectations of parties to civil proceedings. The court reiterated the general principle that there should be no communication with a judge’s chambers in relation to any matter before the court without the consent of all other active parties to the proceedings.4 The court noted however, that legal practitioners are not precluded from alerting a judge by correspondence to the Associate, copied to all other legal practitioners for active parties, that there is dispute between the parties as to orders and to request for the matter to be relisted so that any such contentious matters can be addressed in open court.
At [49], the court noted that, ‘Wisdom and forensic judgement are required in order to assess whether the matter can be expediently resolved or whether the impediments are such that the Court should be alerted to the fact of contention and some explanation given for delay. Practitioners should act with common decency to one another in the process. Reasonable requests to alert the Court to a contentious issue should not be rebuffed but appropriately considered. Ultimately, each matter will turn on its own facts. Practitioners, in exercising their forensic judgement in determining whether to alert the Court to complication and to seek to relist the matter, should be motivated and informed by the overriding purpose of civil litigation and the expeditious resolution of estate law claims.’5
Care should be taken by practitioners to comply with their ethical obligations when communicating with each other and with the court. Additionally, Queensland practitioners should refer to the appropriate practice directions or case management processes of the relevant jurisdiction in which they are appearing.
For further guidance, please note Mark Steele KC and Kirsty Gothard’s article, Communicating with the Court, and QLS Guidance Statement No. 34 Communicating with the court – notifying opponents.
Footnotes
1 [2025] NSWSC 232.
2 Ibid [3].
3 Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock [2025] NSWSC 232.
4 Ibid [44].
5 Ibid [49].
Share this article