Giancarlo Mignardi

The defendants sought an order to extend the time for serving an expert report in a construction dispute.

The court found that the report was served late, rejecting the argument that the deadlines under Rule 53.03 did not apply.

Applying the conjunctive test under Rule 53.08(1), the court denied the extension because the defendants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was due to an unreasonable misreading of a prior court order rather than mere inadvertence.

Following the sale of a mortgaged property, surplus proceeds were interpleaded.

Several execution creditors sought distribution of the funds based on writs existing at the time of the sale.

The respondent ex-spouse brought a motion seeking priority for a family law support order obtained five years after the sale, and to set aside one of the execution creditor's default judgments.

The court dismissed the ex-spouse's motions, holding she lacked standing to collaterally attack the default judgment and that under the Creditors' Relief Act, 2010, a support order made after the creation of the fund cannot take priority over executions existing at the date of sale.

The court granted a motion by one bank to renew its writ nunc pro tunc and ordered the funds distributed among the execution creditors.

Following the dismissal of an application to admit a suicide note as a holograph will, the court determined the costs payable to the successful respondents.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably in pursuing the application to oust legacies in the prior will, but acknowledged the estate bore some responsibility due to the testator's actions.

The court ordered blended costs, with the applicant paying a significant portion and the remainder payable out of the estate.

The applicant sought to admit the deceased's suicide note into probate as a holograph will.

The deceased had a history of heavy alcohol and drug use and wrote the profanity-laced note shortly before taking his own life, attempting to disinherit his spouse.

The court found that suspicious circumstances existed, shifting the burden to the applicant to prove testamentary capacity.

Given the evidence of the deceased's intoxication and the lack of a definitive expert opinion on capacity, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden.

The application to admit the note as a holograph will was dismissed.