This case involved an appeal by SM against the Masters order refusing to allow SM an extension of time to pay CR money.
SM instructed CR to carryout work in connection with a defamation claim. SM stopped paying CR’s fees CR came off the record as a result. CR made requests to SM to pay its fees and SM did not pay. CR commenced proceedings to recover the amount due.
CR filed an application for summary judgment on the amount owing. SM did not file evidence nor did SM instruct anyone to appear at the hearing. The court ordered summary judgment on the claim in favour of CR.
SM sought to have the time limit extended within which to pay. This application was refused for want of evidence. SM appealed and in doing so submitted that the correct order would be to direct that SM provide evidence in support.
The court held that the Master was correct in refusing the application to extend time due to want of evidence.
The judge stated: “The evidence which he filed was plainly inadequate for the purposes of establishing that he had made genuine attempts to obtain the money to enable him to comply with Master Leslie’s October Order. The claimant had pointed out its inadequacy on receipt of the defendant’s witness statement, more than a week before the hearing. However, the defendant took no steps to file further evidence. As I have already observed, this is typical of his conduct in this litigation. It is plain, as I have said, that Master Leslie had already formed the view at the previous hearing that the defendant was seeking to avoid payment of the claimant’s fees or, at the least, to postpone payment for as long as possible.”
If you’re interested in our Commercial Litigation services and would like to find out more, please call Michael Coyle on 0800 0862 0157Â orÂ email email@example.comÂ for a free no obligation chat.