Fifteen-year delay in initiating specific performance proceedings is wholly unexplained

Application to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action, that they are an abuse of process, that they are frivolous and vexatious and/or that they are bound to fail - specific performance of a contract for sale of property – argued that that he is entitled to a moiety interest in the property, commensurate with the contractual deposit already paid together with other ancillary relief - property was mortgaged as security for a loan facility granted to the first named defendant - lender’s interest in the said loan facility together with the associated security was subsequently acquired by Launceston Property Finance Ltd and that Launceston Property Finance Ltd was subsequently registered as the owner of the mortgage and charge – plaintiff appointed as receiver – delay - sixteen years after the cause of action would have accrued – argued that as the second named defendant is not a party to the contract of sale and, therefore, no order of specific performance could be made against it - neither of the defendants are the holder of the charge on the property in circumstances where it is registered to Launceston Property Finance Limited - plaintiff appears to accept that he has no legal title to the property - any interest which the plaintiff purportedly acquired in the property was acquired subject to the mortgage and charge - failed to substantiate any allegation of wrongdoing - sale did not complete by the specified deadline – absence of exhibits to the replying affidavit - principles upon which the court exercises its jurisdiction in such applications – plaintiff must establish a stateable case - delay is wholly unexplained - at all times open to the plaintiff to seek to rescind the contract or to serve a completion notice but he choose not to do so – proceedings dismissed on the grounds that they constitute an abuse of process and are bound to fail.