A primary judge's exercise of discretion to strike out proceedings for want of prosecution will be set aside where the judge attached heavy weight to the supposed unavailability of a key witness and evidence on appeal demonstrates the witness is in fact available. When assessing prejudice from delay, the court must consider whether potential witnesses actually possessed relevant knowledge that could have deteriorated, rather than assuming prejudice from the mere passage of time. The absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay does not, of itself, weigh significantly against continuation of proceedings where no material prejudice is demonstrated.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.