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.
Delay in prosecuting personal injuries proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal finds that the High Court applied the correct principles in the principal judgment, and upholds orders dismissing the appellant's personal injuries application and awarding costs against her, on the grounds that: (a) there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay in the bringing of the matter; (b) the appellant received all relevant documents before the hearing and couldn't identify any she argued that she hadn't; (c) the trial judge had considered her papers; (d) her ground arguing that the trial judge should not have heard the case had no merit; and (e) the trial judge was correct in finding that justice must be heard in public in relation to the online publication of the decision.
Court of Appeal - personal injuries - costs - inordinate and inexcusable delay - appellant former employee of respondent - flawed disciplinary investigation between March 2006 and May 2008 - personal injuries proceedings instigated 6th August, 2010 - trial ready October 2013 - appellant accepted there had been delay - events 15 to 17 years ago - trial quality would be "inferior" - former personnel manager now retired and in bad health - matter couldn't be defended the same way - appellant has right to litigate - 14th November, 2021 - respondent application to dismiss for want of prosecution issued - 21st May, 2022 - solicitor for appellant came off record - found it hard to get instructions - 30th January, 2023 - case heard - 13th February, 2023 - Simons J. dismissed High Court matter - balance of justice against case proceeding - 28th February, 2023 - listed for costs hearing - appellant argued judgment should be set aside - 17th April, 2023 - appellant argued she hadn't seen some papers - 7th June, 2023 - Simons J. decision - no grounds to have set aside - appellant replied to motion and grounding affidavit so had seen files - not disadvantaged by offer of tendor being in trial judge's papers either - this was removed in time - was allowed to argue new cases - it wasn't unfair to dismiss the application and she had time to make her arguments - 17th July, 2023 - appellant ordered to pay costs - both judgments appealed - audi alteram partem - nemo iudux in causa sua - argued 30th January, 2023 hearing was de facto appeal - judgment published online before costs hearing - good name rights - high threshold not met so High Court judgment won't be overturned - appellant was given all documents - couldn't identify any she hadn't received - trial judge had considered her papers - Simons J. had to hear the 30th January, 2023 issue - this ground had no merit - justice must be heard in public - correct principles applied in principal judgment - appeal dismissed.
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.
