The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing her action for failing to comply with court orders, specifically failing to answer undertakings and pay costs.
The appellant argued the Master failed to give sufficient weight to her impecuniosity and the resulting denial of access to justice.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master made no error of principle or palpable and overriding error, as impecuniosity is not a shield for a party who consistently fails to act reasonably.