2 May 2023
Delay was inexcusable and the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits (notably the waiver argument), therefore the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the application, with costs ordered against the Plaintiff.
23 Dec 2021
The court held the prior recorder had substantively adjudicated the plaintiff’s Order 14 application by replacing the sought injunctions with declarations; the plaintiff is therefore estopped from re‑making essentially the same Order 14 application and that application is dismissed. The court refused summary judgment because factual disputes and an arguable defence precluded summary determination. However, on balance of convenience and risk of physical danger to occupants, the court granted an interlocutory mandatory injunction subject to specified undertakings and procedural steps and awarde…
20 Jul 2015
The appeal was allowed because the defendant satisfied the court that it had a real or bona fide defence requiring trial: there were substantial and unresolved disputes of fact and law (title to the wine, allegations of transaction to defeat creditors and trustees' claims, validity and exercise of a lien, and responsibility for delay) making summary judgment inappropriate; thus the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend and the matter must proceed to trial.
3 Sept 2010
Applications for summary judgment by both plaintiffs and defendants were dismissed and the defendants' strike-out application refused because there exist disputed facts (timing and nature of installations), contested legal issues (validity and effect of the 15 April 2005 Regulations and their interaction with the DMC and BMO), and factual questions about feasibility/hardship and acquiescence that require oral evidence and findings at trial; accordingly the matters must proceed to trial.
3 Nov 2005
The judge held it was arguable the tenant had validly exercised the renewal option (the $270,000 figure being an opening proposal for fair market rent) and therefore granted leave to defend under Order 14 rather than finally disposing under Order 14A, but imposed conditions: payment of specified sums (six months rent and interest into court and monthly payments on account of mesne profits) pending final resolution; failure to comply would allow the landlord to enter judgment for possession.