The Court held that an Associate Justice did not err in refusing a third adjournment of a summary judgment application where the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with court-ordered timetables, provided no explanation on oath for non-compliance, and retained solicitors only days before the hearing with instructions limited to the adjournment application alone. The Court confirmed that there is no duty on a judicial officer to advise an unrepresented or inadequately represented litigant of the consequences of failing to file responsive evidence, as such a duty would conflict with the court's role as impartial adjudicator and would disturb the procedural balance between parties. New affidavit evidence on appeal was refused where the evidence consisted of matters within the appellant's personal knowledge that could have been adduced with reasonable diligence before the original hearing, notwithstanding that the respondents conceded the evidence, if admitted, would have raised triable issues.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.