This was an Application brought by the Respondents in the Action for the entry of an Order more than three months after it had been pronounced pursuant to Rule 9.5(2).

Rule 13.5 provides the Court authority to extend timelines where a time period has expired, and Rule 9.5 allows the late entry of Orders upon Application. The Respondents argued that the question was one of prejudice, and that the Applicant had not been prejudiced by the late Order as its terms had been in operation for some time. The Respondents also argued that the Applicant’s complaints regarding prejudice were improper re-litigation of settled issues, and that the Applicant in any event could have obtained an Order pursuant to Rule 9.2. The Applicant argued that the case authority relied upon by the Respondent was irrelevant as it had referred to the old Rule 327. Justice Jones disagreed and found that the Applicant had not established prejudice and granted the Respondents’ Rule 9.5(2) Application.

Justice Jones then turned to the question of Costs for the Respondents’ Application, acknowledging a successful party’s general entitlement to Costs per Rule 10.29, the Court’s broad discretion per Rule 10.31, and the many relevant factors to the Court’s discretion per Rule 10.33. His Lordship noted that the Applicant’s conduct throughout the Application had been problematic, however, the Applicant correctly noted that the appropriate procedure to address a late Order was under Rule 9.5. The reason that a Rule 9.5 Application was needed was due to the Respondents’ failure to prepare and submit a draft Order. Justice Jones concluded that neither party should be required to pay Costs.