A decision to allow a limitation period to expire based on legal advice that a claim has no prospect of success may not constitute a 'deliberate and informed' decision in the Itek Graphix sense where the applicant received conflicting advice and was confused as to his rights. The deliberateness of such a decision is a matter of degree, and a primary judge's assessment of the quality of the decision is entitled to appellate deference. However, an applicant relying on conflicting legal advice should adduce evidence explaining the differing views and the timing of the advice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.