Pullman & Pullman

In *Pullman & Pullman*, heard by Judge Scarlett, the applicant sought to set aside property orders previously made by consent. The respondent applied for summary dismissal of this application, arguing that the substantive application lacked a reasonable prospect of success and that the applicant did not have an arguable case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's application for summary dismissal should be granted. This required the court to determine if the applicant's substantive application to set aside the consent orders was so lacking in merit that it had no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively, if the applicant had no arguable case. The court considered the threshold for summary dismissal, noting that an application need not be hopeless or bound to fail to be dismissed summarily.

Judge Scarlett dismissed the respondent's application for summary dismissal. The reasoning indicates that the court found the applicant's substantive application to have an arguable case and a reasonable prospect of success, thus meeting the threshold for proceeding to a full hearing rather than being summarily dismissed.

Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent's Response filed on 3 December 2012 be dismissed. The respondent was granted 21 days to file and serve an Amended Response and was also given leave to file and serve an affidavit detailing the facts upon which she intended to rely in support of her Amended Response within the same timeframe.