Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court struck out the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries arising from an alleged assault in a residential care facility, citing inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiff in progressing the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff was responsible for prolonged periods of inactivity totalling over two years, well before any significant delay attributable to the defendants, resulting in unavoidable prejudice due to the deterioration of witness memory and the passage of almost a decade since the incident. The court determined that no lesser case management measure could restore the possibility of a fair trial, and that the interests of justice required the immediate end of the proceedings despite some contributory delay on the part of the defendants.
personal injuries – application to strike out – want of prosecution – inordinate and inexcusable delay – residential care facility – assault – witness recollection – natural prejudice – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – breach of contract – negligence – breach of statutory duty – fair trial – proportionality – delay in litigation
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.