Condonation of refiling delay refused where unexplained procedural laxity and unsupported excuses failed the sufficient cause test.

A 115-day delay in refiling an appeal was not condoned because the applicant failed to show reasonable, justifiable and sufficient cause. Although the standard for condoning refiling delay is less strict than for delay in filing, the Tribunal held that explanations such as geographical distance, misplacement of papers by a clerk, delay in obtaining a fresh certified copy, non-receipt of defect notices in the primary inbox, and time spent on translation were unsupported by adequate particulars and were unconvincing. Emphasising that insolvency proceedings require speed and diligence, the Tribunal rejected condonation and refused to excuse procedural laxity on perfunctory grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether 115 days' delay in refiling the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that although the standard for condoning refiling delay is less rigorous than for condoning delay in filing, the applicant must still show a reasonable, justifiable and sufficient cause. The explanations offered, including geographical distance, misplacement of documents by the clerk, delay in obtaining a fresh certified copy, non-receipt of defect notices in the primary email inbox, and time taken for translation of documents, were found to be unconvincing and unsupported by adequate particulars. The Tribunal also stressed that proceedings under the insolvency framework require speed and diligence, and that procedural laxity in curing defects cannot be excused on perfunctory grounds.

Conclusion: The delay in refiling was not shown to be supported by sufficient cause, and the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

---