A defaulting party seeking an extension of time to comply with a self-executing order bears an evidentiary burden to adduce evidence explaining why, despite proper endeavours, it failed to comply and why it can be expected to comply within a reasonable extension period. Perfunctory and nebulous evidence of discussions with unnamed funders, without identification of binding agreements, offers, or indicative terms, is manifestly deficient. The availability of a fresh application upon demonstrating a material change in circumstances (such as depositing funds in a solicitor's trust account) may moderate the prejudice from refusal of an extension and is relevant to whether substantial injustice has been occasioned for leave to appeal purposes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.