4 Mar 2025
The Originating Summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to file any affidavit evidence required by Order 73 rule 5(4), leaving its allegations (inability to present case and public policy breach) as unsupported bare assertions; absent good reason to permit late evidence and given that non‑compliance constitutes an abuse of process, dismissal with indemnity costs was warranted.
8 Feb 2024
The Amended Petition was struck out because the petitioner exhibited inordinate and inexcusable delay (failure to obtain the Registrar’s Certificate for over 1.5 years), repeatedly failed to comply with Rule 29 and court directions (including the March 2023 Direction), demonstrated contumelious conduct and an intention not to prosecute the petition, and thereby committed an abuse of the court’s process such that striking out was the proportionate and necessary remedy; costs follow the event.
27 Jun 1995
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to comply with Order 59 Rule 9 by not lodging the required documents in time, thereby preventing the court from properly hearing the appeal; an adjournment was refused and the appellants' applications to be appointed administrator pending suit were untenable given their interest and conduct.
11 Jul 1980
The Full Court held that r.37 permits waiver or remediation of procedural non‑compliance where the default was not wilful and that this mitigatory power can be exercised by a single judge under r.22(1)(b); consequently the apparent finality in r.23(2) can be mitigated in proper cases and a refusal by a single judge may be renewed to the Full Court.