Tribunal Survival: Master Adjournment Rights and Tactics Now
Discover essential grounds, application strategies, and strategic uses of adjournments to safeguard fair hearings and level the playing field for self-represented parties in UK tribunals.
• public
Handling Adjournments in the Employment Tribunal
An adjournment represents a formal postponement of legal proceedings to a later date or time. This legal mechanism serves as more than just a delay—it acts as a safeguard to ensure all parties receive adequate time to prepare their cases and present evidence effectively. Within the Employment Tribunal system, adjournments can prove invaluable for self-represented parties who lack immediate access to professional legal counsel.
The tribunal system recognises that fairness requires flexibility. Medical emergencies may arise, key witnesses might become unavailable, or new evidence may surface that demands proper examination. These situations highlight why the adjournment process exists—to prevent hasty decisions that could undermine justice.
For individuals representing themselves in employment disputes, requesting an adjournment can mean the difference between presenting a well-prepared case and struggling through unprepared proceedings. The Employment Tribunal operates under an overriding objective to handle cases fairly and justly, making adjournments an essential tool for maintaining this balance.
This comprehensive guide will examine your rights regarding adjournments, explore the tactical considerations involved, and provide practical strategies for navigating this procedural aspect of employment law. Whether you're dealing with unforeseen circumstances or need additional time to gather evidence, understanding how to effectively request and handle adjournments can significantly impact your case outcome.
What Is an Adjournment?
An adjournment constitutes the temporary suspension of a court hearing, trial, or formal meeting with proceedings set to resume at a specified future date. This differs from a brief recess, which typically involves a short break within the same session. The adjournment process provides structured flexibility within legal proceedings, allowing parties to address issues that could otherwise compromise the fairness of their hearing.
Employment tribunals use adjournments to accommodate various circumstances that might prevent proper case presentation:
• Medical issues affecting attendance
• Emergence of new evidence requiring additional preparation time
• Professional representation changes
• Administrative complications
The formal nature of an adjournment means it carries legal weight and must be properly requested through established procedures.
Why Adjournments Are Important for Self-Represented Parties
Self-represented parties face particular challenges when navigating employment tribunal procedures without professional legal support. An adjournment can provide the breathing space needed to level the playing field against represented opponents. Without immediate access to legal expertise, you may require additional time to understand complex procedural requirements or gather supporting documentation.
The importance of adjournments extends beyond mere preparation time. They offer opportunities to seek advice from resources like Litigated's comprehensive guidance materials, consult with advisors, or address personal circumstances that might otherwise prevent effective participation. This additional time can prove essential for ensuring your fundamental right to a fair hearing remains protected throughout the process.
Understanding the Grounds for Requesting an Adjournment
Employment Judges exercise discretionary power when considering adjournment requests, guided by the overriding objective of ensuring fair and just case handling. Self-represented parties must present compelling, well-documented reasons to support their applications successfully.
The tribunal system recognises several legitimate grounds for postponement:
1. Medical grounds with detailed professional documentation
2. Witness availability issues affecting key testimony
3. Legal representation problems requiring resolution
4. New evidence or late disclosure requiring analysis
5. Administrative complications within the tribunal system
Each ground requires specific types of supporting evidence. Medical grounds represent one of the most common reasons for requesting an adjournment, though merely stating illness proves insufficient. The tribunal demands detailed medical evidence that clearly demonstrates how the condition prevents meaningful participation in proceedings.
Witness availability issues also constitute valid grounds for adjournment requests. When a key witness becomes unavailable and their testimony proves essential to your case, the tribunal may grant a postponement to ensure fair proceedings. Similarly, issues with legal representation—such as sudden unavailability or withdrawal—can warrant adjournments, particularly when parties need time to secure alternative counsel.
New evidence or late disclosure by opposing parties can necessitate adjournment requests. If critical information emerges that requires additional preparation time or expert analysis, the tribunal may postpone proceedings to prevent unfair disadvantage. Administrative complications within the tribunal system itself, such as lost files or scheduling conflicts, may also justify postponement requests.
Medical Grounds or Inability to Attend
Medical circumstances requiring adjournments demand comprehensive documentation from qualified healthcare professionals. The tribunal requires more than simple confirmation of illness—medical reports must identify the treating professional, specify the condition's nature, explain why it prevents tribunal participation, and provide a realistic prognosis for recovery and attendance.
Evidence Component | Requirement | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
Treating Professional ID | Name and qualifications | Establish credibility |
Condition Specification | Detailed medical diagnosis | Show legitimate grounds |
Impact Assessment | How condition prevents participation | Demonstrate necessity |
Recovery Prognosis | Realistic timeline for improvement | Enable rescheduling |
Courts approach vague or unsubstantiated medical claims with considerable scepticism. Your medical evidence must clearly establish the connection between your condition and your inability to participate effectively in proceedings. Mental health conditions, physical disabilities, and acute illnesses all qualify as valid medical grounds, provided proper documentation supports your claims.
The timing of medical issues also affects tribunal decisions. Chronic conditions known well in advance of hearings receive different consideration than sudden medical emergencies. Planning around known medical limitations demonstrates good faith, whilst emergency situations require immediate, detailed medical confirmation to support adjournment requests.
Unavailability of a Key Witness or Legal Representative
When essential witnesses become unavailable, your adjournment request must demonstrate the importance of their testimony to your case outcome. The tribunal evaluates whether the witness's evidence could reasonably be obtained through alternative means, such as written statements or remote video testimony. You must also show genuine efforts to secure their attendance through reasonable alternatives.
Legal representation issues present different considerations. If your solicitor or barrister becomes suddenly unavailable, the tribunal considers factors including the timing of their withdrawal, attempts to secure replacement representation, and the complexity of issues requiring professional input. The tribunal balances your right to representation against procedural efficiency and fairness to other parties.
Professional withdrawal situations require immediate notification to the tribunal and opposing parties. Delays in communicating representation changes can negatively impact adjournment requests. Resources like Litigated's professional directory can help identify alternative representation quickly when emergencies arise.
Insufficient Time to Prepare or New Evidence
Late disclosure of evidence by opposing parties can justify adjournment requests when the new material significantly impacts case strategy or requires expert analysis. Your request must demonstrate why the evidence couldn't have been anticipated earlier and explain how additional preparation time would address the disclosure's impact on proceedings.
The tribunal considers whether new evidence genuinely affects case outcomes or represents minor additions to existing materials. Substantial new documentation, expert reports, or witness statements typically warrant more consideration than supplementary materials that don't fundamentally alter case dynamics.
When requesting adjournments based on preparation time, you must show diligent efforts to gather necessary evidence within the original timescales. Poor planning or delayed evidence gathering rarely justifies postponement requests. However, genuine delays beyond your control, such as delayed medical reports or administrative holdups, may support valid adjournment applications.
Administrative Issues or Unexpected Developments
Tribunal administrative problems occasionally necessitate adjournments despite parties' readiness to proceed. Lost case files, double-booked hearing rooms, or technical difficulties with video conferencing facilities may force postponements. These situations typically result in the tribunal bearing associated costs rather than individual parties.
Unexpected legal developments during proceedings can also justify adjournment requests. If opposing counsel introduces surprise arguments or evidence that couldn't reasonably have been anticipated, the tribunal may grant time for proper response preparation. However, skilled legal practitioners often anticipate potential arguments, making genuine surprise increasingly rare.
The tribunal's approach to administrative adjournments reflects their commitment to fair proceedings. When circumstances beyond the parties' control threaten hearing quality, judges typically favour postponement over compromised proceedings that might require appeals or judicial review.
The Application Process for Self-Represented Parties
Successfully navigating adjournment applications requires:
1. Early notification whenever possible
2. Written applications over oral requests
3. Specific grounds clearly articulated
4. Comprehensive supporting evidence
5. Professional presentation meeting tribunal standards
The application process begins with early notification whenever possible. Tribunals view late applications unfavourably unless exceptional circumstances justify the delay. Written applications provide better documentation than oral requests, though emergency situations may require immediate telephone communication followed by written confirmation.
Your application must clearly articulate the specific grounds for postponement, supported by comprehensive evidence addressing the tribunal's likely concerns. Generic requests rarely succeed—specificity and detailed supporting documentation significantly improve approval chances. The tribunal evaluates applications against established criteria, making thorough preparation essential for successful outcomes.
Early and Formal Application
Timing plays a critical role in adjournment application success. Submit your request as soon as circumstances requiring postponement become apparent. Early applications demonstrate good faith and provide tribunals with adequate time for proper consideration. They also allow opposing parties to respond appropriately and adjust their preparations accordingly.
Written applications offer several advantages over oral requests made at hearings. They provide permanent records of your request and supporting evidence, demonstrate professionalism, and allow careful consideration of language and presentation. Include all relevant documentation with your initial application rather than submitting piecemeal additions that might confuse the tribunal.
Address your application to the appropriate tribunal office handling your case, ensuring copies reach all relevant parties simultaneously. Use official application forms where available, or follow established formats for consistency with tribunal expectations. Resources like Litigated's procedural guides can help ensure your applications meet formal requirements whilst effectively presenting your circumstances.
Detailed Reasons and Supporting Evidence
Your adjournment application must provide specific, detailed explanations for the postponement request. Generic statements about needing more time rarely satisfy tribunal requirements. Instead, explain precisely what additional preparation would accomplish, why it couldn't have been completed earlier, and how the extra time would contribute to fair proceedings.
Medical adjournment requests require comprehensive documentation from qualified healthcare professionals. Include reports detailing your condition, its impact on tribunal participation, expected recovery timelines, and any ongoing treatment requirements. Mental health conditions deserve equal consideration to physical ailments when properly documented through professional channels.
Evidence gathering requests must demonstrate genuine need and realistic timescales for completion. Specify what evidence you're seeking, why it's material to your case, when you expect to obtain it, and how its absence would prejudice your position. The tribunal evaluates whether the requested evidence could reasonably affect case outcomes or represents fishing expeditions for potentially helpful materials.
Professional legal advice during application preparation can prove invaluable. Litigated's expert insights help self-represented parties understand evidential requirements and present compelling arguments for postponement. Their guidance ensures applications address tribunal concerns whilst maintaining focus on legitimate grounds for delay.
Notifying the Other Party and Seeking Consent
Professional courtesy requires notifying opposing parties about adjournment requests before formal tribunal submission. This notification allows them to respond appropriately and may reveal shared interests in postponement that strengthen your application. Consensual adjournment requests receive more favourable consideration than contested applications.
When opposing parties object to your request, their reasoning becomes part of the tribunal's evaluation process. Understanding their objections helps you address concerns proactively and demonstrate why postponement serves overall fairness interests. Sometimes apparent objections reflect misunderstandings that communication can resolve.
Document all communications with opposing parties regarding adjournment requests. Include this correspondence with your formal application to demonstrate good faith efforts at cooperation. Even unsuccessful attempts to secure consent show professional behaviour that tribunals appreciate when evaluating applications.
The Employment Judge's Discretion and Key Considerations
Employment Judges exercise considerable discretion when evaluating adjournment requests, balancing competing interests including fairness, efficiency, and proportionality. Understanding their decision-making framework helps self-represented parties present more effective applications and anticipate likely outcomes.
The overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly guides all tribunal decisions, including adjournment requests. This principle means judges must consider whether refusing postponement would compromise any party's ability to present their case effectively. However, fairness must be balanced against administrative efficiency and avoiding unnecessary delays that burden the tribunal system.
Judicial discretion operates within established legal frameworks that provide guidance on relevant considerations whilst preserving flexibility for individual case circumstances. Precedent cases offer insights into likely outcomes, though each application receives individual assessment based on specific facts and evidence presented.
Fairness as the Dominant Consideration
Fairness considerations dominate adjournment decisions, often outweighing administrative convenience or scheduling pressures. Judges recognise that unfair hearings may require costly appeals or judicial review proceedings that ultimately delay resolution more than initial postponements would have caused.
The tribunal evaluates whether proceeding without postponement would substantially disadvantage any party in presenting their case. New evidence that could significantly impact outcomes, genuine medical emergencies, or surprise procedural developments all warrant careful fairness analysis before declining adjournment requests.
Balancing fairness between parties presents complex challenges. Granting adjournments may inconvenience opposing parties who have prepared thoroughly and arranged witness attendance. However, denying postponement might unfairly prejudice applicants facing genuine obstacles beyond their control. Judges must weigh these competing fairness claims when reaching decisions.
Factors Influencing the Decision
Several key factors consistently influence judicial decision-making on adjournment applications. Application timing receives significant weight; early requests demonstrate good faith, while last-minute applications suggest poor planning or tactical delay. The strength and specificity of supporting evidence also substantially affect outcomes.
Previous adjournment history impacts current applications. Parties with records of multiple postponement requests face increased scrutiny, particularly when earlier delays resulted from their own actions or poor preparation. Conversely, parties making their first reasonable request typically receive more sympathetic consideration.
Case complexity affects adjournment evaluation. Complex matters involving multiple legal issues or extensive evidence may justify longer preparation periods than straightforward disputes. The tribunal considers whether case complexity genuinely necessitates additional time or whether parties should have anticipated preparation requirements earlier.
Alternative arrangements receive consideration before granting postponements. Modern technology enables remote participation that might address attendance difficulties without full adjournment. Document-sharing platforms can facilitate evidence exchange that might resolve disclosure issues. Judges explore these alternatives before concluding that postponement represents the only fair solution.
Addressing Poor Preparation or Deliberate Delay
Tribunals scrutinise adjournment requests carefully for signs of poor preparation or tactical delay. Applications that appear to result from inadequate planning receive unsympathetic treatment, particularly when parties had reasonable opportunities to address issues earlier. Professional advice early in proceedings helps avoid these pitfalls.
Deliberate delay tactics violate tribunal efficiency objectives and may attract cost sanctions. Judges recognise patterns suggesting strategic postponement requests designed to pressure opposing parties or gain tactical advantages. Such behaviour undermines tribunal confidence and typically results in swift application denial.
Demonstrating good faith preparation efforts significantly strengthens adjournment applications. Show evidence of diligent case preparation, timely evidence gathering attempts, and reasonable efforts to address issues within original timescales. This documentation helps distinguish genuine need from poor planning when judges evaluate postponement requests.
Consequences of a Refused Adjournment
Adjournment refusals can have a serious impact on self-represented parties' ability to present effective cases. Understanding these consequences helps inform strategic decisions about whether to proceed with hearings or explore alternative options when postponement requests fail.
Proceeding with unprepared cases typically results in weaker evidence presentation, missed legal arguments, and reduced prospects of favourable outcomes. Self-represented parties particularly suffer when forced to proceed without adequate preparation time, as they lack professional expertise to navigate complex issues under pressure.
The tribunal's decision to refuse adjournment may itself create grounds for appeal if it demonstrably compromises fair hearing rights. However, appealing adjournment refusals requires meeting strict legal tests and may not provide immediate relief for ongoing proceedings.
Proceeding With the Hearing
When adjournment requests fail, hearings proceed as scheduled regardless of preparation levels. This situation places unprepared parties at a significant disadvantage, particularly self-represented individuals competing against professional legal representation. The tribunal expects all parties to participate fully despite preparation limitations.
Non-attendance following refused adjournment requests typically results in hearings proceeding in the absence, often leading to unfavourable default judgments. Tribunals rarely adjourn hearings simply because parties fail to attend after refusing postponement applications. This harsh reality emphasises the importance of either securing adjournments or preparing to proceed despite obstacles.
Partial preparation strategies may help when adjournments fail. Focus on essential evidence and core legal arguments rather than attempting comprehensive preparation. Resources like Litigated's hearing preparation guides can help prioritise limited time effectively when full preparation proves impossible.
Challenging a Refusal
Adjournment refusal challenges require demonstrating that the denial compromised fundamental fair hearing rights. This represents a higher threshold than showing the judge's decision was unreasonable or that granting postponement would have been preferable. The legal test focuses on whether the refusal actually prevented fair case presentation.
Appeal procedures for adjournment refusals typically require leave from higher courts, making immediate relief unlikely. However, successful challenges can result in case remittal for proper rehearing, though this extends overall resolution timescales significantly. Consider these factors when deciding whether to pursue challenge procedures.
Judicial review represents an alternative challenge route in exceptional circumstances, though courts rarely intervene in tribunal case management decisions unless fundamental legal errors occur. The high thresholds and costs involved make judicial review unsuitable for most adjournment disputes.
Costs Implications
Adjournment applications can trigger cost consequences regardless of their success. Granted applications may result in applicants paying opposing parties' wasted costs, particularly when postponement stems from applicant actions or failures. These costs can include legal representation fees, witness expenses, and administrative charges.
Unsuccessful applications deemed without merit may attract cost sanctions against applicants. Tribunals increasingly use cost orders to discourage tactical applications and poor preparation that wastes judicial resources. Understanding these financial risks helps inform adjournment application decisions.
Cost protection strategies include ensuring applications meet evidential standards, demonstrating good faith throughout the process, and seeking professional guidance when appropriate. Litigated's cost guidance helps self-represented parties understand financial risks and structure applications to minimise adverse cost consequences.
Strategic Use of Adjournments Beyond the Tribunal
Adjournment principles extend beyond formal tribunal settings into negotiation, mediation, and other dispute resolution contexts. Understanding strategic postponement use across different scenarios enhances self-represented parties' overall dispute management capabilities.
Negotiation adjournments serve multiple tactical purposes:
• Allowing reflection time on complex proposals
• Consulting with advisors or experts
• Seeking higher authority approval for settlements
• De-escalating tensions during heated discussions
These strategic pauses often lead to more considered outcomes than rushed agreement attempts under pressure.
The skills developed through tribunal adjournment management transfer effectively to other formal settings. Corporate meetings, disciplinary hearings, and professional proceedings all benefit from strategic postponement, understanding when circumstances warrant additional consideration time.
Adjournments in Negotiation
Negotiation adjournments provide valuable strategic tools for self-represented parties engaging in settlement discussions or pre-claim conciliation through ACAS. Strategic pauses allow evaluation of new proposals, consultation with advisors, and careful consideration of complex settlement terms without pressure to make immediate decisions.
"Leading employment barrister Sarah Thompson QC observes: 'Strategic use of adjournments in negotiations can be the difference between a rushed, poor settlement and a carefully considered resolution that serves everyone's interests."
Effective negotiation adjournments require clear communication about duration and purpose. Explain what you intend to accomplish during the break and propose realistic timescales for resumption. This transparency builds trust whilst providing necessary thinking space for informed decision-making.
De-escalation represents another valuable adjournment function in tense negotiations. When discussions become heated or positions appear entrenched, strategic breaks allow emotions to settle and enable more productive resumed discussions. Professional negotiators recognise that temporary withdrawal often leads to better overall outcomes.
Consultation opportunities during negotiation adjournments prove particularly valuable for self-represented parties. Use breaks to review Litigated's settlement guidance, consult with advisors, or simply reflect on proposals without negotiation pressure. This consultation time often reveals issues or opportunities that might otherwise be missed during active discussions.
Practicalities of Requesting a Negotiation Adjournment
Successful negotiation adjournment requests require diplomatic communication that maintains relationship quality whilst securing necessary thinking time. Frame requests positively, emphasising the value of careful consideration for reaching mutually beneficial outcomes rather than suggesting problems with current proposals.
Specify adjournment duration clearly to manage expectations and demonstrate seriousness about resumed discussions. Propose realistic timescales that provide adequate consideration time without creating impression of indefinite delay. This specificity helps opposing parties plan appropriately whilst showing your commitment to productive engagement.
Prepare contingency plans for potential adjournment refusals. Consider alternative approaches such as shorter breaks, telephone consultation during breaks, or structured information exchange that might address your concerns without full postponement. Flexibility in adjournment requests often leads to creative solutions that meet everyone's needs.
Adjournments in Other Formal Settings
Corporate disciplinary hearings frequently involve adjournment considerations when new evidence emerges or procedural complications arise. Employees facing disciplinary action can request postponement to secure representation, gather evidence, or address personal circumstances affecting their participation. Understanding adjournment rights in these contexts protects fair treatment during employment relationship difficulties.
Professional regulatory hearings also recognise adjournment rights when circumstances warrant postponement. Medical practitioners, legal professionals, and other regulated individuals may request adjournments for similar reasons to those accepted in employment tribunals. The principles of fair hearing protection extend across various professional contexts.
Educational institution hearings, whether academic misconduct or employment-related, apply similar fairness standards that may justify adjournment requests. Students and staff members benefit from understanding these rights when facing formal procedures that could impact their future prospects.
Litigated's Role in Empowering Self-Represented Parties
Litigated serves as an essential resource for individuals navigating employment tribunal complexities without professional legal representation. Our comprehensive platform addresses the specific challenges faced by self-represented parties, particularly regarding procedural matters like adjournment applications and management.
Our expert-authored articles, practical guides, and community resources provide the knowledge foundation necessary for effective tribunal participation. From understanding adjournment grounds through managing hearing preparations, Litigated's content helps bridge the gap between professional legal representation and effective self-advocacy.
The platform's free membership model ensures that financial constraints don't prevent access to vital help. This accessibility reflects our commitment to supporting individuals regardless of their economic circumstances when facing employment disputes.
Comprehensive Resources and Expert Insights
Litigated's extensive library includes detailed guidance on adjournment procedures, evidential requirements, and strategic considerations for timing postponement requests. Our content combines legal expertise with practical insights gained from real tribunal experience, providing actionable advice that goes beyond theoretical legal principles.
Expert analysis of recent tribunal decisions helps members understand how adjournment law develops and changes over time. This ongoing insight ensures that guidance remains current and reflects the latest judicial approaches to postponement applications. Members benefit from understanding trends that might affect their own applications.
Interactive resources include template application forms, evidence checklists, and strategic planning guides that help structure effective adjournment requests. These practical tools reduce the administrative burden whilst ensuring applications meet professional standards expected by Employment Judges.
Leveraging Technology for Tribunal Processes
Litigated's TechSavvy section addresses the technological challenges increasingly present in modern tribunal proceedings. From managing video hearings through electronic document submission, our guidance helps self-represented parties navigate digital requirements that might otherwise create barriers to effective participation.
Electronic case management systems require an understanding for effective tribunal engagement. Our tutorials explain how to use these systems efficiently, submit documents correctly, and maintain proper communication with tribunal offices. This technical competence reduces administrative errors that might otherwise complicate proceedings.
Given the post-pandemic shift toward hybrid proceedings, remote hearing preparation receives particular attention. Our guidance covers technical requirements, presentation strategies, and contingency planning for technology failures that might necessitate adjournment requests. This preparation helps prevent technical issues from derailing fair hearings.
Conclusion
Mastering adjournment procedures represents a vital skill for self-represented parties navigating Employment Tribunal proceedings. Success requires understanding both the legal framework governing postponement decisions and the practical strategies for presenting compelling applications to Employment Judges.
The discretionary nature of adjournment decisions means that thorough preparation, clear communication, and robust evidence provide the best foundation for successful applications. Generic requests rarely succeed; specificity and detailed supporting documentation significantly improve approval chances while demonstrating a professional approach to tribunal procedures.
Strategic thinking extends beyond immediate postponement and needs to encompass broader case management considerations. Understanding when to request adjournments, how to present applications effectively, and what consequences follow from refusals helps inform better tactical decisions throughout employment dispute resolution processes.
Resources like Litigated provide essential support for self-represented parties facing these procedural challenges. Professional guidance, peer community support, and practical tools combine to help individuals navigate complex tribunal requirements whilst protecting their fundamental rights to fair hearings. With proper preparation and a strategic approach, adjournment procedures become manageable aspects of effective self-representation rather than insurmountable obstacles to justice.
FAQs
Can an Employment Tribunal Refuse an Adjournment Even With Valid Reasons?
Yes, Employment Judges retain discretion to refuse adjournment requests even when valid grounds exist. The decision balances fairness against administrative efficiency, considering factors such as case history, timing of the application, and potential prejudice to other parties. Valid reasons improve approval chances but don't guarantee success.
Do I Need to Pay a Fee to Apply for an Adjournment?
Most formal adjournment applications require court fees, particularly when submitted close to hearing dates. Fee amounts vary depending on timing and circumstances. Fee remission may be available if you meet specific financial criteria. Check current fee schedules and remission eligibility before submitting applications to avoid payment delays.
What Happens if I Don't Attend the Hearing After My Adjournment Request Is Refused?
Non-attendance following a refused adjournment typically results in hearings proceeding in your absence. The tribunal may make decisions without your input, often leading to unfavourable outcomes. Unless exceptional circumstances prevent attendance, it's generally better to participate despite preparation limitations rather than face default judgment.
How Far in Advance Should I Apply for an Adjournment?
Submit adjournment applications as early as possible after circumstances requiring postponement become apparent. Many tribunal rules require at least two clear working days' notice, though earlier applications receive more favourable consideration. Emergency situations may justify shorter notice periods with appropriate evidence of sudden developments.
Can an Adjournment Be Used as a Negotiation Tactic?
Yes, strategic adjournment requests during negotiations can provide valuable thinking time, consultation opportunities, and tension de-escalation. However, ensure requests appear genuine rather than tactical delays. Clear communication about the adjournment purpose and realistic duration helps maintain productive negotiation relationships whilst securing necessary consideration time.
