14 Apr 2026
Because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Order 53 rule 3(2) by not using Form 86 to state relief and grounds and by not providing a supporting affidavit, and because no reasonably arguable public law grounds were identified, there was no basis to grant leave and the application must be dismissed.
12 Dec 2018
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to state any grounds as required by Order 53 rule 3(2)(a)(iii) and no supporting affidavit verifying the facts was filed as required by Order 53 rule 3(2)(b), and those procedural defects warranted dismissal of the leave application.
2 Nov 2016
Defendant had earlier admitted possession of the commission/bonus documents yet failed to enumerate them or adequately explain their loss or disposal in the prescribed form; therefore he did not comply with the discovery order and the Master was entitled to find the discovery defective and to exercise discretion to refuse strike out while granting one final opportunity and awarding costs; appeal dismissed.
20 Jun 2016
Because the petitioner established a significant debt supporting insolvency, the opposing contributory held only a minimal interest and failed to present or identify anything likely to amount to a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, and because Rule 32 timelines had passed, the court refused the extension and made the winding-up order.
14 Apr 2011
The court allowed the defendant to amend the summons as per the re-amended draft, held that the 1st and 2nd Affidavits of Mr Howse suffice as the verifying evidence for the challenge under Order 12 Rule 8, and exercised its discretion to dispense with service of the re-amended summons; consequently no order was made on the plaintiff's Notice of Appeal subject to costs.