Ex parte order recall requires proof of non-service or sufficient cause; bare dispute claims do not justify reopening.

An ex parte order under the tribunal rules can be recalled only if non-service of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance is proved. Here, service was treated as established through the refusal endorsement and surrounding circumstances, while the plea of Covid-related closure was rejected; the request to set aside the ex parte orders therefore failed on this ground. The reply notices and asserted pre-existing dispute also did not justify reopening, because they did not show a dispute supported by material existing before the demand notice or any pending suit or arbitration. The application was accordingly rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte orders deserved to be set aside on the ground that notice was not duly served or that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing; (ii) whether the reply notice and alleged pre-existing dispute could be relied upon to reopen the ex parte order.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte orders deserved to be set aside on the ground that notice was not duly served or that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

Analysis: The remedy against an ex parte order under the applicable tribunal rules is confined to cases where non-service of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The materials placed did not establish that the notice was not served. The office was shown to have functioning activity around the relevant time, and the plea of closure due to Covid-19 was not accepted. An endorsement of refusal and the surrounding circumstances supported a presumption of service. The application also did not disclose any sufficient cause preventing appearance.

Conclusion: The request to set aside the ex parte orders was rejected on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the reply notice and alleged pre-existing dispute could be relied upon to reopen the ex parte order.

Analysis: The dispute raised in the reply notices was treated as a challenge to contractual liability rather than proof of an existing dispute supported by material. For an operational debt proceeding, the relevant inquiry is whether a dispute existed before receipt of the demand notice or whether any pending suit or arbitration existed. The reply notices did not establish such a dispute with supporting evidence, and the later reply notice would not have altered the conclusion already reached on the earlier reply notice.

Conclusion: The alleged reply notice and claimed pre-existing dispute did not justify setting aside the ex parte orders.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because neither non-service nor sufficient cause was established, and the asserted dispute did not satisfy the requirements for interference with the ex parte orders.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte order under the tribunal rules can be recalled only on proof of non-service or sufficient cause, and a mere assertion of dispute without supporting material does not warrant reopening the proceeding.

---