Yes Ron. Me. Certainly members of the Bar have to act in the best interests of their clients. I know of no member of the Bar who would apply (and be granted) an adjournment just to inflate costs. Indeed, one of the main parts of the "overriding objective" under the Civil Procedure Rules is that cases be dealt with cost effectively.
The suggestion that Judges should make a decision either way on a fixed cost basis is ludicrous. I rather suspect that in a case of this nature, the Judge wanted time to consider his judgement and perhaps do some more research which is why he has reserved judgement. Hearing fees, are in any event, fixed. If he gets it right at this stage, it cuts down the potential for appeal. You pay one hearing fee irrespective of how long the case takes.
In certain cases (eg, fastrack cases, again Counsel's fee is fixed at a set rate depending on the amount of the claim. Counsel does NOT get paid if the case runs over into a second day so there is absolutely no reason to draw it out).
The LAST thing a lawyer wants is an adjournment - particularly if they have spent the last 2 days prepping for trial. They know for a fact that in 5 months time when the case is relisted, they will have to spend the best part of a further day and half to get on top of the papers again and prep is never paid twice!
And then there are those lawyers who do a lot of work pro bono - which otherwise their clients would be unable to afford.