Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2524/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 24 February 2012 before Harris J.
Civil contempt – committal proceedings – originating summons – Order 52(3)(ii) of the Rules of the High Court – requirement to enter originating summons for hearing within 14 days of grant of leave – application to extend time where notice of application not issued within prescribed period – procedural failure attributed to oversight during transition between law firms – whether failure caused delay to progress of proceedings – held no real delay caused because originating summons served, respondent acknowledged service, evidence directions made, and affidavit filed – extension of time granted – whether language of 13 December 2011 without-prejudice letter (referring to inevitable prison sentence and substantial damages award) and alleged similar earlier mistake supported inference of conscious tactical decision to delay – held heavy-handed language insufficiently objectionable or oppressive to displace explanation of oversight – application to extend time granted with directions – respondent granted leave to file and serve evidence of Mr Andrew Allman-Brown by 2 March 2012 – applicant granted leave to file and serve evidence in reply by 16 March 2012 – parties permitted to write to court to fix substantive hearing – applicant to pay costs of the 17 February 2012 summons and the delay, to be taxed if not agreed – HCMP 2524/2011.
Legal issues: Extension of time under Order 52(3)(ii) RHC for entry of contempt originating summons for hearing · Whether 13 December 2011 without-prejudice letter shows conscious tactical decision to delay committal proceedings
Outcome: Application to extend time granted; committal proceedings to progress with directions made for filing and serving evidence, with the applicant to pay the costs of the summons of 17 February 2012 and the delay caused.
Cites 1 case