(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may, with consent of the parties, order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Rule 42.Consolidation; separate trials
Group VI: Trials · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets the court consolidate related actions or order joint hearings to save time and expense, and separately lets the court order separate trials of particular claims or issues while preserving the right to a jury trial.
Full Text of Rule 42
(b) Separate Trials. The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or as given by a statute.
Notes
Reporter’s Notes: This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule 42. Rule 42(a) carries forward Vermont practice, under which full consolidation might be had only with the consent of the parties. 12 V.S.A. § 1071 (now superseded). The rule gives the court power to order either the joint trial of common questions in two or more separate actions or, with the consent of the parties, the full consolidation of actions into a single action. Thus, the court may act to avoid piecemeal trial of related matters when the parties have failed to take advantage of other provisions, such as Rules 13, 14, 18, and 20, permitting free joinder of claims and parties. Rule 42(b) is virtually identical to 12 V.S.A. § 1906 (now superseded), which was based on the federal rule. The new rule, however, includes the phrase “conducive to expedition and economy” and the saving of the jury right, both of which were added to the federal rule after enactment of the statute. Separation is essential in the administration of the various free joinder devices in the rules, which might otherwise lead to cumbersome or prejudicial trials.
Plain-English Summary
When two or more pending actions share a common question of law or fact, Rule 42(a) gives the court options short of forcing everything into one proceeding. It can order a joint hearing or trial covering the shared issues, and it can go further and consolidate the actions fully, but only with the parties' consent. Either way, the point is to spare the parties duplicate costs and delay when the same facts or legal questions are being litigated more than once.
Rule 42(b) runs the opposite direction. Even within a single action, the court can split off a separate trial for any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or discrete issue when doing so serves convenience, avoids prejudice, or promotes speed and economy. The rule is careful to preserve whatever right to a jury trial the Constitution or a statute guarantees, so severing issues for separate trials cannot be used to strip a party of that right.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can the court order full consolidation of cases?
Only when the actions involve a common question of law or fact and the parties consent. Without consent, the court can still order a joint hearing or trial of the common issues, and can issue orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
Can the court split a single case into separate trials?
Yes. Rule 42(b) lets the court order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or separate issue, in furtherance of convenience, to avoid prejudice, or when doing so promotes expedition and economy.
Does ordering separate trials affect the right to a jury?
No. Rule 42(b) expressly requires the court to preserve inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or given by statute when it orders separate trials.
Do the parties have to agree before the court orders a joint hearing?
No. A joint hearing or trial of common issues under Rule 42(a) does not require party consent; only full consolidation of the actions into one does.
Why would a court order separate trials instead of one combined trial?
To avoid prejudice to a party, to promote convenience, or because separating a claim or issue will be conducive to expedition and economy compared with trying everything together.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Reporter's Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Vermont Supreme Court. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: consolidation of actions vermontseparate trials rule 42joint hearing vermont civilbifurcated trial vermont