Sydney Hodge

The appellants appealed a Master's decision that set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal of the respondent's action for delay.

The respondent law firm had commenced an action alleging wrongful solicitation of clients by the appellants.

The action was dismissed five years later under Rule 48.14.

The Superior Court found that the Master made several legal and palpable and overriding errors in applying the Reid factors, including equating delay with the litigation not advancing at all, lowering the bar for what it means to prosecute an action, and improperly shifting the burden of proving prejudice to the appellants.

The appeal was allowed, the Master's decision was set aside, and the Registrar's dismissal was upheld.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay and sought leave to maintain the action under the Business Names Act.

The action had been automatically stayed because the plaintiff had failed to register its business name.

The court held that the registrar still had jurisdiction to dismiss the action for delay despite the statutory stay.

However, applying the Reid test, the court set aside the dismissal order, finding that the delay was caused by the inadvertence of the plaintiff's former counsel and that the defendants would not suffer significant prejudice.

The court also granted leave to maintain the action, as the failure to register the business name was an innocent oversight that had since been rectified without misleading the public.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial.

The action, commenced in 2014 to enforce a 2013 default judgment, had seen no steps taken by the plaintiffs for 30 months between 2016 and 2019.

Applying the conjunctive test for delay, the Master found that while the defendants would not suffer significant prejudice, the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set a timetable for trial, while the defendants sought to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff's lawyer cited medical and practice issues to explain the delay, which the court found lacked particularity.

Furthermore, a key defendant who provided independent legal advice had suffered a stroke and severe memory loss during the delay, causing non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the Faris test and dismissed the action for delay.