Restoration of appeal refused for inordinate delay where no sufficient cause or diligence in tracking the case was shown.

An application to restore an appeal filed more than five years after dismissal was rejected because no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The applicants did not establish that they remained in contact with their advocate or took steps to verify the status of the appeal, and they also failed to notify the Tribunal of any change in address for correspondence. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay, the Tribunal found the explanation wholly unsatisfactory and declined restoration of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the appeal, filed after more than five years from dismissal, deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The application was moved long after dismissal of the appeal. The applicants had not shown that they remained in contact with their advocate or took steps to ascertain the fate of the appeal. They also had not informed the Tribunal of any change in address for correspondence. In these circumstances, the explanation offered for the long delay was found to be wholly unsatisfactory, and no sufficient cause was established for restoring the appeal.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was rejected.

---