The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside registrar’s orders dismissing two personal injury actions as abandoned under Rule 48.15(1) after the claims were not served within the prescribed time.
The delay resulted from the plaintiff’s lawyer being misled by a former law clerk who falsely indicated the claims had been served and allegedly concealed dismissal notices.
Applying the factors articulated in Habib v. Mucaj and Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court considered the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.
The court found the delay was not deliberate, the motion was brought promptly once the issue was discovered, and the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.
The registrar’s dismissal orders were set aside and service of the statements of claim was validated.
