Lien-enforcement proceedings were brough by two lien holders against a landowner. A lien-bond surety wanted to be added into the proceedings, either as a party or an intervenor, pursuant to Rules 2.10 or 3.74. A special Application on lien validity and claim quantification was scheduled for May 31, 2024, before an Applications Judge. The surety sought to adjourn the Application to allow time for it to apply to be added to the proceedings.

Justice Lema considered the proper forum to hear the Application to adjourn. The Court considered Rule 3.74 and Rule 2.10, and the definition of the term “the Court” in the Rules. He found that the Rules permitted an application to add a party or intervenor to be made before an Applications Judge. The upcoming Application was also scheduled to be heard by an Applications Judge. The Court therefore determined that the appropriate forum to argue the adjournment Application was before an Applications Judge.

The Applicant also sought to rely on Rule 6.3(3), arguing that the matter should be adjourned because it was not properly served with the Application materials 5 days before the Application. Justice Lema found that they may have been an affected party, which may provide support for an adjournment. However, Justice Lema dismissed the adjournment request, in favour of allowing the assigned Applications Judge to hear the same Application.