The Applicant, a Third-Party Defendant in the Action, applied to dismiss the third-party proceedings against it due to long delay pursuant to Rule 4.33. The issue to be decided by the Court was whether the Applicant’s Third-Party Statement of Defence represented a “significant advance”. It had been filed within the past three years.

Master Prowse found that the Third-Party Statement of Defence did constitute a significant advance for the purposes of Rule 4.33(2) because it put on the record the specific defences being advanced. Moreover, Master Prowse rejected the Applicant’s argument that the Statement of Defence was filed simply to avoid a Noting in Default and was therefore not a significant advance. The avoidance of a Noting in Default showed that the Statement of Defence had a “substantial functional result” which was a significant advance in the Action.

The Application to dismiss the Action for long delay pursuant to Rule 4.33 was dismissed.