Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff against orders made pursuant to the provisions of O. 63 r. 1 (a) of the Rules of the Superior Courts on 5 th December, 2003, 28 th November, 2002, and 10 th April, 2003, whereby the Master of the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the first, second and third named defendants respectively for want of prosecution.
The Plaintiff seeks orders from this court setting aside the orders of the Master and permitting her to proceed with her claims against the defendants.
It is pertinent to note from the outset that the plaintiff's claim is one of a series of approximately 138 similar claims, which have been commenced on behalf of various claimants by the plaintiff's solicitors by way of Plenary Summons against the three defendants.
Claims in similar, if not identical, terms have been made by the plaintiff's solicitors on behalf of 137 other persons and it is acknowledged by the parties that the existence of those other claims made concurrently with the plaintiff's claim by the same solicitors against the same defendants has a relevance to this appeal.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants now stands dismissed by the Master of the High Court on the grounds that the plaintiff has been guilty of such inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting her claim that the balance of justice requires that her action should not proceed.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.