23 Aug 2017
The Court granted the extension of time because the delay was slight, an adequate explanation existed (replacement counsel and defective/misdirected legal aid application), and there was no prejudice to the respondent; r 36 did not apply because no valid legal aid application had been made at the time of appeal, and only the Court could extend time under r 5(2).
13 Oct 2009
Under the amended High Court Rules the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a writ of sequestration because the specific performance decree was in substance an order for payment of a sum of money; therefore the application for sequestration was refused.
1 Mar 2005
The Court held it had power in the interests of justice to treat the application as both an extension of time for bringing an application for leave and as a fresh application for leave under r5, exercising the power afresh under s16(1) because the solicitor's genuine error amounted to a material change in circumstances and no substantial prejudice to the respondent was shown; r6 and r27 did not apply; however leave to appeal the costs judgment was declined because the complaints were merits‑based and did not raise questions of law.