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 |
High Court refuses application to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution in a case where the plaintiff had engaged the defendant to provide a valuation on a property in 2006, on the grounds that: (a) while there was inexcusable delay the balance of justice did not favour striking out the proceedings; and (b) the collapse of the banking system per se could not be relied on by the plaintiff as a satisfactory excuse for the delay although the transfer of functions to other financial entities and the subsequent sale of the loan portfolios by the Joint Special Liquidators had to be taken into account and weighed in the balance.
Practice and procedure – application to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution by reason of the inordinate and/or inexcusable delay of the plaintiff – O. 122, r. 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – plaintiff engaged the defendant to provide a valuation on a property – whether the delay was excusable – collapse of the banking system per se can be relied on by the plaintiff as a satisfactory excuse for the delay in this case – where does the balance of justice lie – balance of justice does not favour striking out the within proceedings – there is no substantive risk that there cannot be a fair trial in this case – proceedings to continue
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.