24 Aug 2023
Leave to commence the proceeding by way of originating application was granted because the dispute is straightforward, unlikely to raise complex legal issues, and can be fairly resolved on affidavit evidence without detailed pleadings or interlocutory procedures, making the exceptional r19.5 procedure appropriate in this case.
29 Sept 2021
Leave was granted to commence the proceeding under Part 19 because the disclosure sought was narrow and statutory in nature, the issues were confined and suitable for an originating application, and the interests of justice favoured a just, speedy and inexpensive procedure without the need for detailed pleadings or extensive interlocutory steps.
16 Jul 2021
Leave to commence by originating application was refused because the matter was not sufficiently straightforward on the papers: there was sparse documentary evidence of the alleged agreement, a real prospect of factual dispute and cross-claims, and probable need for oral evidence and cross-examination, making the originating application procedure inappropriate and unfair to the absent respondent.
10 Jul 2020
The Court granted leave because the dispute concerns a discrete statutory application under s 339 where the s 342 considerations can be addressed by affidavit evidence, the issues are confined and suitable for the originating application procedure, and the possibility of a counterclaim about a different property does not preclude determining the present application for sale of the subject property.
27 Jun 2018
Leave to commence the s66 Trustee Act directions application by originating application under Part 19 was refused because the issues cannot responsibly be resolved without further background, pleadings and limited discovery; Part 18 is the appropriate procedure for s66 directions in this case, and the applicant may pursue the directions under Part 18 with specified time limits and costs directions.
2 May 2018
The application was refused because the proposed causes of action had no realistic prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process: the infringement allegation was supported by disclosure and made in good faith, and the alleged police remark could not sustain a viable defamation claim in the context of the applicant's vexatious litigant history; accordingly no prima facie case was shown and leave was refused.
19 Dec 2017
The application for leave to commence by originating application was declined because the dispute was not suitable for the originating application procedure: the factual issues were not narrow, there were multiple respondents and potential complexity, discovery and viva voce evidence were likely required, and interpretation of the trust rules was contentious; accordingly the Court directed commencement by statement of claim.
18 Mar 2013
Leave to commence the testamentary promises claims was granted because the ten-month delay was narrowly excusable given sustained settlement efforts and estate complications from earthquakes, the applicants showed a reasonable prospect of establishing an implied promise to equalise benefits and a nexus between services rendered and that promise, and no substantive prejudice to estate distribution was established; overall justice required granting the indulgence.
16 Sept 2009
Leave was granted because the plaintiffs' 25-day delay resulted from an acknowledged simple mistake of fact, the delay was minimal, no obvious prejudice to defendants was identified, and service on the overseas defendant complied with High Court Rule 6.27(c).