23 Apr 2020
Extension of time to appeal refused because applicant provided no explanation for delay, identified no error in the judge's refusal of leave, and adduced fresh evidence that could have been obtained earlier and would not have affected the decisive credibility findings; therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect of success and was hopeless.
11 Aug 2015
The appeal was dismissed because (1) the appellant's prolonged inaction amounted to abuse of process warranting striking out, (2) the claim against the sponsoring body disclosed no reasonable cause of action in the pleadings, (3) the Teachers' communications were plainly protected by qualified privilege absent pleaded or demonstrated actual malice, and (4) the consolidated statement of claim was scandalous, prolix and beyond reasonable salvage; accordingly the statement of claim was struck out and the action dismissed.
5 Dec 2011
The appeal was allowed and parts 1 and 3 of the Master's order set aside because the defendant demonstrated by its affirmations and photographic evidence that its defence raised genuine factual disputes as to cause, visibility and ability to influence or remedy the gutter such that the defence had a real prospect of success, warranting setting aside the default interlocutory judgment; the fresh evidence application was unnecessary and withdrawn.
16 Jul 2010
The appeal was dismissed because the debtor failed to comply with the Bankruptcy Rules (no notice to show cause, no affidavit in opposition, no opposition at the adjourned hearing), failed to raise any bona fide dispute at the Court of First Instance so as to require the Master to adjourn, and attempted to adduce fresh evidence on appeal contrary to the Ladd v Marshall principles; there was no sufficient basis to conclude the prior District Court judgment was obtained by fraud.
24 Oct 1973
The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because no affidavit was filed, the notice was inadequate and late, there was no satisfactory explanation or demonstrated efforts to trace the proposed witness, and the case did not present the exceptional circumstances or sufficiently strong evidence required to overturn the verdict.