This was an Appeal of the lower Court’s refusal to grant relief from sanction under Rule 26.8 (2) caused by the Appellant’s late filing of its witness statements, the effect of which was to prevent the Appellant from relying on same. The Court of Appeal found that for an applicant to satisfy the conjunctive requirements of Rule 26.8 (2) the evidence must be “clear, detailed and accurate picture of what caused the failure” and should delineate the steps taken to remedy the failure. The Court stressed that the applicant bore the burden of producing “credible and particularised” evidence as opposed to bald unparticularised assertions.
To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Adam Bilzerian -v- Gerald Lou Weiner and Kathleen Ann Weiner Claim No. SKBHCVAP – 2015/0015