11 Mar 2008
ORAKA GRADERS LIMITED V GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2005-419-809
- Citation
- openlaw-07ffed14_18e9_4cb2_9873_fc81e554dc0b.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The application for adjournment was declined because, despite plaintiffs' procedural defaults (late briefs, late amended statement of claim, late discovery), the court was not persuaded the new issues were so complex or prejudicial that they could not be addressed within the remaining pre-trial period; the court varied the timetable (defendants' briefs due 11 April 2008; plaintiffs' strict reply due 30 April 2008), reserved costs to the defendants on a 2B scale to be awarded in due course, and permitted defendants to reapply if security for costs or other substantive prejudice arose.