When assessing prejudice on an application to extend time for judicial review under r 98.06, the correct approach is to assess the prejudice arising from the grant of the extension itself, not by comparison with the position if proceedings had been commenced within but towards the end of the limitation period. The availability of alternative remedies not subject to the six-month time limit is not an answer to the prejudice asserted by the respondent and is not a reason to grant an extension. The question of whether a plaintiff can circumvent the six-month time limit by bringing proceedings not by way of judicial review raising the same challenge was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.