Article summary
This judgment demonstrates some of the complexities that can arise where a court makes an order under CPR 23.8(c) without a hearing. Although in this case the judge found that it was perfectly within the Deputy Master’s jurisdiction to do so and that the order he made was entirely justified, through a serious of subsequent misunderstandings that followed, what should have been albeit a relatively complex application for permission to amend, was compounded by something akin to a procedural obstacle course, until the matter finally came before a Judge a year later. In giving judgment, the judge considered the effect of the parties’ agreement staying the action (but with no stay order in place from the court), the endorsement of orders on application notices without a hearing under CPR 23.8(c) and the applicable tests for seeking to revoke and or set aside such orders before rejecting such applications and concluding that the...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial