Counsel on this application accepted Frew v. Roberts as stating the test to be applied on this application. While I see no reason not to apply that test in this case, I suggest that the burden upon a party applying under s.25(6) may be heavier than that imposed by the former regime upon a party opposing an application to dismiss for want of prosecution. The burden of applying now rests on the appellant. The 180 day period does not begin running until there has been some delay in prosecution of the appeal. The appellant must meet the deadline or suffer the dismissal of the appeal. The failure to take any step to remedy the default within the 180 day period may, in most cases, be enough to establish that the delay was inordinate but I need not decide that. The delay having gone on in this case for so many more months, it was obviously inordinate.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.