The Court dismissed proceedings for want of due despatch where the plaintiff failed to file evidence despite multiple extensions and indulgences, and then sought to discontinue without a costs order. The Court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on Lai Qin, holding that a defendant's routine administrative review of the decision under challenge did not constitute a supervening event rendering proceedings otiose, particularly where the plaintiff conceded the review did not resolve the issues in the proceedings and the more likely cause of discontinuance was the plaintiff's own failure to file evidence. The Court also confirmed that a dismissal under r 12.7 UCPR cannot operate as a res judicata preventing fresh proceedings absent a determination on the merits, per ss 90 and 91 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.