A liquidator's deliberate decision to delay service of originating process while awaiting litigation funding arrangements is not, of itself, a good reason for extension of time, particularly where alternative funding options were available but not pursued. The insistence on a level of costs indemnity disproportionate to realistic estimates of exposure does not justify delay. Orders made on ex parte extension applications do not preclude different conclusions on contested discharge applications where different evidence and submissions are advanced. Presumptive prejudice from deterioration in the quality of evidence is a legitimate consideration even where some witnesses have recorded their recollections.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.