The Court held that while UCPR r 23.8 confers power to order inspection of property in contempt proceedings (and s 169 of the Evidence Act is not an available alternative source of power for obtaining fresh observational evidence), the discretion to grant inspection was refused where the applicant Council had unequivocally represented that its evidence was complete before the respondent entered pleas, the motion was filed after the respondent's evidence deadline had passed, no adequate explanation for the delay was provided, and granting the order would risk vacating the substantive hearing. The Court distinguished Sader v Elgammal on the facts, particularly the absence of prior representations about evidence completeness and the absence of jeopardy to hearing dates in that case. The abuse of process argument was not reached given the discretionary refusal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.