Reema & Baboor

This matter concerned an application by Reema (the applicant) seeking to vary an order made by Hannam J on 15 December 2023, which had dismissed her application for an order for possession of a property. Baboor (the respondent) was the registered proprietor of the property and had entered into a lease agreement with the applicant. The applicant sought possession of the property on the basis that the respondent had breached the terms of the lease agreement. The court was required to determine whether the previous order dismissing the applicant's possession claim should be varied or set aside.

The central legal issue before Hannam J was whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis to justify varying or setting aside the earlier order. This involved considering the principles governing the variation or setting aside of court orders, particularly in circumstances where new evidence or a significant change in circumstances might be alleged. The court also had to assess whether the applicant's arguments regarding the alleged breaches of the lease agreement were sufficiently compelling to warrant revisiting the dismissed possession claim.

Hannam J found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any error in the original decision or any new circumstances that would justify varying or setting aside the order for possession. The judge noted that the applicant had not presented any new evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing, nor had she established any material change in circumstances. Consequently, the application to vary the order was dismissed.