Duncan-Strelec v Tate

In Duncan-Strelec v Tate, the plaintiffs sought leave to serve lay and expert evidence after multiple defaults in complying with orders for the service of affidavits. The defendants moved for summary dismissal of the proceedings on the basis of the plaintiffs' failures and the expiry of the limitation period. The court was tasked with deciding whether to allow the plaintiffs to serve lay and expert evidence despite their defaults, and whether to grant the defendants' application for summary dismissal.

The court examined the plaintiffs' repeated defaults in serving affidavits and their failure to seek directions for the adducing of expert evidence. It noted the potential for further delay and additional costs if the defendants' motion for summary dismissal was granted. The court concluded that while the plaintiffs' defaults were serious, the plaintiffs had shown a willingness to comply with the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court granted leave for the plaintiffs to serve a lay affidavit but denied leave to rely on expert evidence due to the lack of directions sought.

The court also considered the defendants' application for summary dismissal, weighing the dictates of justice against the expiry of the limitation period. It found that granting summary dismissal might result in further delay and increased costs, which would not be in the interests of justice. The court therefore refused the defendants' application for summary dismissal.

The court's final orders were that the plaintiffs were granted leave to serve a lay affidavit but not expert evidence, and the defendants' application for summary dismissal was refused.