Cuijpers v Sander [No 2]

The appellant, Cuijpers, appealed against the decision of a single judge of the court of appeal who had struck out his grounds of appeal and dismissed his applications to adduce additional evidence and subpoenas. The appellant had been convicted by a magistrate of breaching a restraining order. The single judge held that the grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the appellant's applications on the basis that they were an abuse of process. The appellant contended that the single judge erred in striking out the grounds of appeal and in dismissing the applications to adduce additional evidence and subpoenas. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed, finding that the single judge was correct in holding that the grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and that the applications to adduce additional evidence and subpoenas were an abuse of process.

The court held that the single judge was correct in striking out the grounds of appeal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The court found that the appellant's grounds of appeal were based on arguments that were either not supported by the evidence or that had already been considered and rejected by the primary judge. The court held that the single judge was correct in dismissing the applications to adduce additional evidence and subpoenas on the basis that they were an abuse of process. The court found that the appellant had not shown any good reason for not adduced the evidence at the original hearing and that the applications were an attempt to relitigate issues that had already been decided. The court held that the single judge's decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the single judge was correct in striking out the grounds of appeal and in dismissing the applications to adduce additional evidence and subpoenas. The court held that the appellant had not shown any good reason for not adduced the evidence at the original hearing and that the applications were an abuse of process. The court found that the single judge's decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court further held that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.