The Respondent obtained a Fiat to file materials late. The Appellant applied to have the Fiat set aside and for an Order finding the Respondent’s counsel in Contempt of Court. The Chambers Judge dismissed the Appellant’s Application. The Appellant then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal stated that the granting of a Fiat, pursuant to Rule 13.38, is a discretionary, procedural decision that is owed deference on appeal. Such a discretionary decision can only be interfered with by the Court where the Chambers Judge misdirected themselves, the Decision is so clearly wrong it amounts to injustice, or where insufficient or no weight is given to relevant considerations.

The Court found no basis for appellate intervention because the Appellant did not suffer any prejudice from the granted Fiat. Further, the Appeal was moot as new deadlines for filing would be set when the matter was set down for a special. Despite that the Respondent’s counsel did not provide the Court with a reasonable excuse for the missed deadline, it was reasonable for the Chambers Judge to attribute this to human error, rather than finding that it was done intentionally to defy a Court Order. The Court also noted that the Appellant’s perception of bias against self-represented litigants, that they are held to a high standard while members of the legal profession are given breaks, is unfounded. Although the Respondent’s counsel missed a few deadlines and therefore did not model the ideal practice to the Appellant, lawyers are human and from time-to-time miss filing deadlines. The granting of Fiats is a common practice that accommodates such oversights or slips. The Appeal was therefore dismissed.