De Poi v De Poi (No 2)

In the matter of De Poi v De Poi (No 2), the plaintiffs sought to strike out the defendants' list of documents and to obtain further and better disclosure of documents. The application was made after the time limit set by the Court for such applications had expired. The plaintiffs argued that the application was timely because making it earlier would have been premature. The court was required to determine whether the late application was consistent with caseflow management principles and appropriate in the interests of justice.

The court considered the general duties of litigants and their lawyers, as well as the principles of caseflow management. The court held that although the application was made late, the plaintiffs had established some grounds for doubting that the defendants had fully discharged their obligations with respect to disclosure. The court granted the application in part, allowing the disclosure of documents to which the plaintiffs were alerted by the defendants' recent filings and correspondence. The court dismissed the application in relation to those aspects which should have been brought within the time fixed by the Court's previous order.

The court made orders requiring the defendants to verify their disclosure by affidavit and to provide further disclosure of certain categories of documents. The court also granted the plaintiffs' application for an extension of time to apply for further and better disclosure of certain categories of documents. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an extension of time in all other respects. The court ordered that the defendants file and serve an affidavit verifying their disclosure by a specified date. The court heard the parties on costs and any consequential matters.

The court concluded that the principles of caseflow management and the general duties of litigants required compliance with the Rules and orders of the Court with respect to the completion of interlocutory steps. The court held that late interlocutory applications may be refused, or the Court may order that an action proceed to trial even when a party is not ready for trial by reason of its own default. The court held that considerations of the cost and delay to other litigants are relevant in the application of caseflow management principles. The court held that a just resolution of the parties' dispute is to be understood in the light of the purpose and objectives stated in the relevant rules. The court held that orders for costs may not overcome all the prejudice occasioned by the opposing party.