13 Jan 2026
The summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the breach of the Unless Order was neither intentional nor contumelious and was caused by extraneous circumstances, and failed to explain why a search of the court file was necessary; consequently there was no basis to set aside the dismissal.
13 Oct 2010
The plaintiff's prolonged, inordinate and inexcusable delay and failure to comply with court orders and repeated warnings amounted to an abuse of the court's process and caused prejudice rendering a fair trial impossible; accordingly, it was fair and appropriate to strike out the plaintiff's action and to order indemnity costs with a certificate for counsel, and to permit the defendant to withdraw the counterclaim with no order as to costs.
17 Oct 2008
Applying the established test from In re Jokai/PT Bank Pembangunan, the court concluded the defendants' non-compliance was not intentional or contumelious but caused by extraneous circumstances (typhoon and practical difficulties in obtaining the signature and filing), and therefore the strike out should be set aside and the defendants' defence reinstated; the court exercised discretion to allow relief and awarded costs on the appeal to the plaintiffs with a gross sum assessment of $96,850.
25 May 2006
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judge's refusal to strike out: defendants failed to discharge the burden of showing deliberate suppression of discovery or that the non-disclosure made a fair trial impossible; the plaintiff's affirmations provided an acceptable explanation that could not properly be rejected without cross-examination; absence of any peremptory/unless order increased the hurdle for striking out and the judge acted within his discretion.
23 May 2006
The court declined to make a draconian unless order striking out the defence because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant's failure was intentional; instead the court issued a warning, ordered compliance within 28 days from 12 May 2006, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,200.00; failure thereafter will be treated as contumelious and may result in striking out and judgment.
2 Aug 2005
The court held the plaintiff's failure to comply with the unless order was caused by the plaintiff's solicitors' mistakes and not intentional or contumelious by the plaintiff; therefore dismissal sanction was inappropriate provided final compliance was ordered with costs; the orders dismissing the action and refusing extension were set aside and a final three-day compliance period with costs was ordered; the Master's allowance of the defendant's reliance on the 2nd affidavit was affirmed.
6 Jul 2005
The court found the 2nd defendant's non-compliance was not contumelious but linked to his previous lack of representation and extraneous circumstances; the sanction imposed by the Master was disproportionate. The Master's order was varied to limit the strike out to lines 5-8 of paragraph 1 only, and the judgment entered against the 2nd defendant was set aside.
22 Jun 1999
The Master did not err in refusing to strike out the defence because the defendant's non‑compliance with the Unless Order was not shown to be intentional and contumelious; delay and partial/non‑production were attributable in part to a third party (Wardley) and to the volume and complexity of the materials, and striking out would be a disproportionate remedy given the circumstances.
17 Mar 1997
The Registrar's dismissal of the Plaintiff's summons was correct because arrears were made up before the hearing and no unless order had been sought; absent an unless order the proper enforcement remedy is execution under Order 45 r.1; however, given the Defendant's persistent and inadequately explained delays the Registrar's costs order was erroneous and is set aside, with costs of the appeal and of the hearing below awarded to the Plaintiff with a certificate for two counsel.
24 Oct 1996
The breach of the unless order was not intentional and contumelious; applying the binding authority in Tan Eddy Tansil, the solicitor's default should not deprive the blameless plaintiff of the right to litigate where no injustice arises, therefore leave to serve particulars out of time was justified and the master's order was upheld except as to an erroneous costs direction.