ABSTRACT
This court, in my judgment, would be doing nobody any service in seeking to reintroduce into the interpretation of these rules judgments of courts which were given under the old regime, insofar as the new regime has taken over from the old regime. I can see nothing in rule 13.3 or in the overriding objective in Part 1 to suggest that, if a defendant does not give a reason for the delay, that is somehow or other a knockout blow, on which a claimant is entitled to rely in support of an irresistible submission that there is no material on which the court can exercise its discretion in the defendants’ favour. The fact that the defendants have given no reason for a delay is, of course, one of those matters which the court may wish to take into account if there is a long, unexplained delay, and if the claimants would be prejudiced if a judgment were set aside. This court should, however, in my judgment refrain from being prescriptive about the way Circuit Judges and District Judges in the exercise of their discretion should apply rule 13.3.
