The Plaintiff had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and was subject to an Order requiring her to obtain permission of a single Justice of the Court of Appeal in order to bring an Application.

The Plaintiff requested permission to apply, pursuant to Rule 9.12, to correct a mistake in one of Justice Rowbotham’s earlier Decisions in which Her Ladyship had denied the Plaintiff’s request for permission to apply to restore her Appeal. Her Ladyship had previously ordered the Plaintiff to post Security for Costs within a certain period and she had not done so. This, in addition to the fact that the Application to restore the Appeal did not meet the test for restoration of an Appeal, was the foundation for Justice Rowbotham’s Decision.

Eventually, the Plaintiff paid her Security for Costs and then initiated this Application. The Court denied the Application. Justice Rowbotham confirmed that the mistake or error contemplated by Rule 9.12 must be based upon facts as they existed at the time of the Decision, and not on circumstances which have changed since that time. It followed that the Plaintiff attempting to post or posting Security for Costs two months after Her Ladyship rendered the Decision not to restore the Plaintiff’s Appeal was not a mistake or error contemplated by Rule 9.12.