This is an AI-generated summary of a selected monitored public legal source and may omit context. It is general information only, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for reading the source or consulting an attorney.
AI summary
The High Court considered whether a supplementary affidavit filed after a consent order was an irregular step. It held that no leave had been sought before filing, set the affidavit aside, and dismissed the conditional counter-application. The costs of the main application remained reserved, and the applicants were awarded the costs of this application on scale B.
This appears to concern Rule 30 and Rule 6(5)(e) procedure, as well as how reserved costs were dealt with after a consent order.
Evidence from source
The principal issue is whether the respondents’ supplementary affidavit constitutes an irregular step for the purposes of Rules 30 and 30A.
Supports: plain_summary sentence 1
No leave was sought before the affidavit was filed. That renders the filing irregular.
Supports: plain_summary sentence 2