reinstatementquantification of damagesheads of argumentRule 26condonationpreliminary issues
Tags
reinstatementquantification of damagesprocedural compliancecourt rules
legislation
Statutes Cited
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
A
c
t
1
9
9
8
P
r
i
s
o
n
A
c
t
1
9
5
2
P
r
i
s
o
n
R
u
l
e
s
1
9
9
9
(
S
I
1
9
9
9
/
7
2
8
)
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
A
c
t
1
9
6
1
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
A
p
p
e
a
l
A
c
t
1
9
6
8
S
u
p
r
e
m
e
C
o
u
r
t
A
c
t
1
9
8
1
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether application for reinstatement should be granted without condonation for late filing","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application filed years after bar, no condonation sought"}
{"issue_text":"Whether relief regarding heads of argument is appropriate while applicant remains barred","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant seeks order to file heads while barred"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant obtained an order for reinstatement or damages in 2010. In 2015 his application for quantification of damages was struck off the roll for non-compliance with Rule 19(3)(b), barring him. He failed to cure the defect within 30 days. In 2017 he unsuccessfully applied for rescission, which was withdrawn. In 2021 he applied for reinstatement of the quantification application without seeking condonation.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases