The ultimate question on an application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal is whether strict application of the rules would occasion injustice, which requires evaluation of the substantive merits. Where a small amount of evidence supports a finding, it cannot easily be said there is 'no evidence', even if the evidence is internally weak or contradicted by stronger evidence. The Court left open whether the 'no evidence' test might need refinement where a very small amount of evidence is contradicted by a mass of much more convincing evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 62 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 62 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.