The Court held that UCPR r 36.16 does not confer power on a judge to set aside or vary a judgment or order made by another judge of the same court, and that the proper course where a party contends a primary judge overlooked a significant submission is to apply to that same judge under r 36.16, not to a different judge sitting as duty judge. The motion was dismissed as the self-represented applicants' repeated attempts to challenge case management directions and compel the respondent council to reframe its Statement of Facts and Contentions amounted to an impermissible attempt to conduct the substantive Class 1 appeal on an interlocutory motion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.