10 Aug 2021
Leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment was declined because the applicant had abandoned the appeal over five years earlier, took no steps to pursue the application or appeal despite being warned the appeal would be set down, and never particularised grounds of appeal so the Court could not assess its merits; the application was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.
22 Jul 2020
Indemnity costs were not justified because plaintiffs did not act with the flagrant bad faith required for indemnity (no clear evidence they alleged dishonesty knowing it to be false); however increased costs were warranted because plaintiffs unreasonably pursued unmeritorious claims, recycled previously criticised pleadings, and failed to comply with directions and timelines. A 40% uplift on scale costs was appropriate for both successful defendants; the Calderbank walk-away offer did not justify indemnity costs.
1 Apr 2019
The appeal was properly dismissed for want of prosecution by exercise of the Court's inherent power because the appellant was aware of the hearing and his obligation to attend, chose not to appear or to contact counsel despite being able to do so, and attendance was necessary given contested allegations about counsel competence; the inherent power may be exercised in these circumstances subject to careful consideration of the appellant's rights.
24 Oct 2018
The appellant's prolonged failure to prosecute (approximately 19 months) and non-engagement produced inordinate and inexcusable delay causing serious prejudice to ACC, justifying strike-out under r 15.2 and alternatively r 15.1; however the Court exercised its discretion to grant one final opportunity by ordering a teleconference and warning that failure to attend will result in strike-out.
27 Jul 2017
The proceeding was struck out because the plaintiff's persistent, serial and inexcusable non-compliance with timetabling orders and lengthy post-issue delay established an abuse of process and also satisfied the three-part test for want of prosecution (inordinate delay, inexcusable delay, and serious prejudice to the defendant); the Court therefore exercised its strike-out jurisdiction and awarded costs with security for costs to be disbursed accordingly.
16 Sept 2016
Appellant failed to comply with court timetabling orders and did not provide any credible explanation for prolonged inaction; the unexplained, inordinate delay and lack of mitigation (no security or payment into court) meant the overall interests of justice required dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution under r 20.12 High Court Rules; moreover, the genuineness of the signature had not been properly put in issue below and no fresh admissible evidence was filed.
15 Dec 2015
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to file submissions after being granted extensions and did not respond to Registry enquiries; under court practice dismissal for want of prosecution was appropriate and no costs were ordered.
30 Nov 2015
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant and her counsel repeatedly failed to comply with the court's directions, provided no explanation despite specific requests, and the court exercised its case management powers to bring finality to longstanding proceedings.
15 Oct 2015
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to take the required steps to advance the appeal within the time specified in the court's minute and effectively indicated he did not wish to proceed.
5 Mar 2013
Because the applicant had, over an extended period, repeatedly failed to file submissions and did not prosecute the leave application with due diligence despite multiple reminders and extensions, the Court ordered that the application will be dismissed for want of prosecution under r14.24(b) unless submissions are filed by 31 March 2013.