Page 25 - tmp

13. lt was inappropriate for the Defendant’s representatives to have made this application as he

was fully aware of the fact that our directions questionnaire was dully filed at Court on 17
TH
November 2017. He was copied in to all the correspondence sent to the Court. He was also

advised by me that the Court must have made an error when it stated to have received the

th
order on 20 November 2017 while clearly it received it electronically on 17 November 2017.
th
I am of the view that the Defendant’s representatives have taken advantage of the situation as
when making this application he already knew of the fact that the Claimant's questionnaire was

th
filed on 17 November 2017 and there could be a possibility of the Court reconsidering its
decision of striking out the Claim. I find his conduct against the spirit of the Civil Procedures
Rules which encourage parties to cooperate, communicate and try to resolve dispute out of

nd
Court. The Court order dated 02 January 2018 could have been avoided had the Defendant
acted with more fairness and this conduct has partly triggered the necessity to make this

application notice which means that the Claimant is now incurring more costs.
th
14. I am also instructed that since the Court made the interim injunction order on 09 August 2017,
the Defendant’s anti-social behaviour has ceased towards the neighbours and no complaints

have been received from them. I am therefore of the view that the residents and employees of
the Claimant could be prejudice if the Claim and interim injunction order were not reinstated.

15. As a result of the above, we would like the Court to set aside the orders made on 13
th
nd
December 2017 and 02 December 2018. The Claimant would also like the Claim and interim
injunction to be reinstated and an order that the Defendant pays the Claimant’s costs as his
conduct has led to the necessity to make the present application.

24