4 Apr 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied on were fact‑dependent (the Court of Appeal's finding that the proceeding was revived in August 2015), did not raise questions of general or public importance, and did not disclose an appearance of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly there was no proper basis to grant leave under s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
3 Dec 2021
The Court allowed the appeal, holding the District Court had jurisdiction to make timetable directions because the proceeding had been revived by the August 2015 extension to apply for default judgment and setting aside the default judgment did not extinguish the revived proceeding; the interests of justice favored determining the dispute on its merits and the Limitation Act did not bar the claim given the proceedings were promptly instituted and not stale.
9 Sept 2021
The application for adjournment was declined because the plaintiff's claim was relatively straightforward, the defendant had personal knowledge enabling timely response, the asserted prejudice was not compelling given available short extensions, prior solicitor withdrawal and disciplinary proceedings did not justify a lengthy adjournment, and the court must protect scarce fixture time and finality for other litigants; instead the timetable was modestly varied to give limited additional time to the defendant.
22 Feb 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because there was more than ample time for the appellant to obtain funding, legal representation and prepare for the appeal, and therefore no issue or prejudice existed that could justify intervention by the Court of Appeal.
28 Aug 2018
The court granted leave to file the amended statement of claim because the proposed amendments (including the new eighth cause of action) did not unfairly prejudice the defendants and depended on pleaded facts; the defendants were given a fixed time to file an amended defence. The court dismissed the adjournment application because an adjournment of the three‑week trial would cause about a 12‑month delay and would not be in the interests of justice, but the court granted a limited extension for service of defendants' evidence and amended timetable directions to mitigate any prejudice.
20 Apr 2018
The Court ordered that experts must cooperate to produce a single joint expert report (allowing layering by discipline) and comply with the High Court Earthquake List Protocols because the parties had previously agreed a single joint report, experts had jointly inspected the site, and the Court was not satisfied that sequential discipline-specific reports would be more appropriate or efficient given the history and overlap of issues.
6 Dec 2017
The appellant was given the statutory 10 working days' notice under s338(2) and failed to comply with outstanding court orders or take steps to prosecute the appeal; accordingly the appeal was treated as abandoned and dismissed under s338(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
21 Jun 2016
The strike out was set aside because the proceeding was not ready for trial due to an inadequate statement of claim and because striking out did not achieve finality while causing undue prejudice; reinstatement with specified conditions (discontinuance against the Board, filing an amended compliant statement of claim, payment of outstanding costs) was the appropriate remedy.
20 Oct 2015
The application for costs was declined as premature because timetable directions are not generally interlocutory orders and any delay by the plaintiff is better addressed when the substantive proceeding is heard or otherwise disposed of; the plaintiff's delays may be taken into account in a later costs award.
19 May 2015
The Court concluded that notice should, in principle, have been given to Parish Council members; the central issue is purely factual — whether the persons claimed by the plaintiffs were members on 5 December 2013 — and that factual issue cannot properly be resolved on affidavit material alone and requires oral evidence, so the proceeding is adjourned and interim relief is continued.