IDRIS v MOHAMED

This was a proceeding reviewed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke as being an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). Pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7 (“CPN7”), Associate Chief Justice Rooke ordered that the Plaintiff provide written submissions to the Court to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. As the deadline for written submissions passed without a response from the Plaintiff, Rooke ACJ concluded that the Plaintiff did not rebut the prima facie conclusion of an abuse of the Court. Accordingly, the Court determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68. Associate Chief Justice Rooke also ruled that the Plaintiff’s approval of the Order granted was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).