The appellant, Emad Beshay, appealed an order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 48.14(7)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The action, commenced in December 2016 for breach of contract and misrepresentation related to a business purchase, had seen no significant progress for over five years.
The motion judge rejected the appellant's explanations for delay, including family deaths, mental illness, and financial problems, finding them unsupported by cogent evidence and contradicted by his business activities.
The motion judge also found the respondents would suffer prejudice due to fading memories of witnesses and lost banking records.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's discretionary decision and finding no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of the evidence or application of the two-part test for delay dismissal (acceptable explanation and no non-compensable prejudice).