M E T v S K a E

The appellant, M E T, commenced proceedings against the respondent, S K a E, his former wife, alleging loss and damage arising from an Interim Intervention Order issued against him. The appellant claimed he was denied registration and employment as a teacher due to this order, and sought aggravated and exemplary damages. His claims were framed in tort, specifically malicious prosecution and collateral abuse of process, requiring an allegation that the respondent intended to cause him harm. The respondent applied for summary judgment or a strike-out of the proceedings, arguing there was no reasonable basis for the appellant's claims. The primary judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, ordering her costs. The appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal, which was substantially amended. The respondent then sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Alternative Contention, raising two points not comprehensively addressed by the primary judge in her favour.

The legal issues before the court concerned whether to grant the respondent an extension of time to file and rely on her Notice of Alternative Contention. This involved considering the potential prejudice to the appellant and the respondent's ability to address the two points raised in her submissions. The respondent's proposed alternative contention focused on whether the appellant suffered "special damage," which appears to be a necessary element for the tort of collateral abuse of process.

The court, per Livesey Ex Tempore P, granted the extension of time sought by the respondent. The reasoning was that the two points raised in the Notice of Alternative Contention had been comprehensively addressed before the primary judge, both in writing and orally. The court was not convinced that the appellant would be unable to address these points, and therefore, the appellant would not be unduly prejudiced by the extension. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for the respondent to file and serve the Notice of Alternative Contention.

The court ordered that the respondent be granted an extension of time until 12 noon on the following day to file and serve the Notice of Alternative Contention. The appellant was granted leave to file supplementary written submissions by 10 am on the following Monday if he wished to supplement his existing submissions regarding the two points raised. There was no order as to costs.