The Court dismissed the self-represented applicants' third successive motion seeking to set aside or vary prior interlocutory judgments and case management directions in a Class 1 BIC appeal, holding that the motion was an impermissible attempt to re-agitate issues already determined in two prior judgments. UCPR r 36.16(1)–(3A) was held unavailable in respect of the first judgment as more than 14 days had elapsed since entry, and the application to set aside the second judgment was characterised as an impermissible appeal. The expert evidence directions were varied on the Council's application to require only the Council's expert to report, removing the joint conferencing requirement given the applicants had not retained an expert.
The full text is available to signed-in members.