6 Jun 2022
The Master lawfully exercised power under Order 3, rule 5 to extend time; the reference notes in Form 14 did not create an 'unless' order; deferral of the defence caused no substantial prejudice given overlap with related proceedings; consequently the appeal against the Master's order is dismissed as unmeritorious.
24 Jan 2022
The July order was not an 'unless order' and therefore O.2 r.4 did not apply; the Master properly exercised his discretion under O.3 r.5 to grant a retrospective extension of time to the defendant and the plaintiff's challenge failed, so the appeal is dismissed with costs.
8 Sept 2014
The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or a satisfactory explanation to extend the writ's validity under Order 2 r 1 and/or Order 3 r 5; the plaintiff could not properly have renewed the writ under Order 6 r 8, knew the defendant had moved to Mainland China, did not act expeditiously or seek substituted service earlier, and therefore relief was not warranted.
6 Oct 2011
The court follows prior authorities (Wynn and Menno Vos) that Order 3 rule 5 does not permit extensions for applications under Order 59 r 2B; therefore it had no jurisdiction to grant the extension or hear the leave application; alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed the applicant gave no adequate explanation for lateness, the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and leave is refused; costs awarded to respondent.
29 Sept 2008
The court held that while it has a discretion under O.3 r.5 RDC to extend the 14‑day acceptance period for a payment into court, it would not exercise that discretion on the facts: no special circumstances justified extension, defendant would be prejudiced on costs, and the proper route for a late acceptance is an application under O.22 r.5 RDC for payment‑out where costs can be determined.
8 Jun 2006
The court confirmed it has jurisdiction (following Ma Wan Farming Ltd) to extend the 14‑day period under Order 3 r 5 and inherent jurisdiction, but dismissed the defendant's application because the delay was inadequately explained and there was no substantive merit to vary the costs order; accordingly the application to extend time and vary the costs nisi was refused.
16 Jul 1998
Order 71 r.5(4) must be read according to its plain meaning: 'while it remains competent for any party to apply' refers to the competence of the applying party and is judged by the statutory time limit; accordingly the rule provides a single code curtailing the Court’s general power to extend time in registration proceedings under Ord.3 r.5 or inherent jurisdiction, and the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the extension sought for the Registrar’s Certificate; appeal dismissed.
6 May 1997
The appeal was dismissed because the first defendant failed to provide any acceptable explanation for the delay in applying to set aside service; absent a satisfactory explanation the court declined to exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 to condone the late application, so the defendant's appeal failed.