Where a respondent to a time-extension application fails to give prior notice of the prejudice argument it intends to rely upon, and the applicant is thereby unable to deal with the point, the resulting injustice may justify the admission of further evidence on appeal to address that point. Forensic diligence by the applicant is a relevant but not decisive factor in s 52(4) applications; the more important question is whether the respondent is at risk of actual prejudice. Respondents to time-extension applications should signal in advance the grounds of opposition, and practitioners on both sides should take steps to ensure all relevant issues are identified before the hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 122 later cases that cite this judgment.
16 of the 122 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.