Kuek v Devflan Pty Ltd

Kuek applied for a review of a costs order made by a Judge of the Court. The application was filed and served outside the time limit for such applications. The respondent, Devflan, argued that the application should be dismissed due to the applicant's non-compliance with the time limit and lack of an acceptable explanation for the delay, which prejudiced the respondent and resulted in a lack of prospects of success for the review application. The court was required to determine whether the application for review of the costs order should be set aside due to the applicant's non-compliance with the time limit and lack of explanation, and whether the respondent was prejudiced by the delay and if the prospects of success for the review application were lacking.

The court considered the overarching obligations under Part 2.3 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010, which emphasised the need for all parties to act efficiently and expeditiously in the conduct of proceedings. The court noted that there was a protracted delay with no explanation provided for the delay in filing and serving the application for review. This delay contravened the overarching obligations set out in the Act. The court found that the applicant had not provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, and the respondent was prejudiced by the delay. Furthermore, the prospects of success for the review application were lacking. Consequently, the court set aside the application for review of the costs order.

In conclusion, the court set aside the application for review of the costs order due to the applicant's non-compliance with the time limit, lack of explanation for the delay, and the resulting prejudice to the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the overarching obligations under Part 2.3 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the need for parties to act efficiently and expeditiously in the conduct of proceedings. The court did not grant the application for review, and no further orders were made.