Ms. Kostic applied to restore an Appeal that had been struck for
non-compliance with filing requirements. The Appeal arose after the Case Management Judge denied her leave to apply for indemnification. The Application was brought under the fast-track process in Rule 14.14.

Under Rules 14.24 and 14.26, the Appellant’s factum was due July 9, 2025, but was rejected for exceeding the permitted length and formatting. Although an extension to July 16, 2025 was granted, the Appellant yet again filed a non-compliant 30-page factum without further leave. The Appeal was automatically struck on July 17, 2025, pursuant Rules 14.24(1)(a) and 14.64(b).

Ms. Kostic applied within the three-month period allowed by Rule 14.47 to restore the Appeal. The Court held that restoration is discretionary and depends on the interests of justice, including merit, reason for default, promptness, intention, and prejudice. The Appeal lacked arguable merit as the indemnification issue had already been deferred to trial and repeatedly addressed in earlier decisions.

Citing Rule 1.1(2), the Court held that lack of legal knowledge or technical issues did not excuse non-compliance; the Rules apply equally to all litigants. Despite her promptness and lack of prejudice to the Respondents, Ms. Kostic failed to provide an adequate explanation or show merit. The Application to restore the Appeal was dismissed.