When considering whether failure to renew would do substantial injustice to the respondent, the learned local judge said at pp. 182-83: "As I have said, the only apparent reason for non-service was the negligence of the plaintiff's former solicitor or solicitors. Certainly no fault can be charged to the plaintiff." As between the respondent and his former solicitors, that might well be valid, but I doubt that as between the parties to the motor vehicle accident it can be said that no fault can be charged to the respondent. It does not appear that the respondent succeeded in seeing his first solicitor after early 1972. He appears to have spent months, even years, doing little other than trying unsuccessfully to contact his first solicitor. Thereafter, years went by with nothing happening between the parties to this litigation. For a period prior to 1977 and the new rules that attitude might have been due to Cropp v. Moreton, supra. That is no help. I am not persuaded that the new rules were designed to revitalize actions that had been dormant for years. If the new rules were to have that effect, this respondent is not helped. Another inactive year followed their introduction.
Get a full legal research memo!
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.