Pre-deposit delay condoned where the stay order did not trigger automatic dismissal and financial difficulty justified extension of time.

Delay in complying with a pre-deposit direction under a stay order was condoned where the deposit requirement did not operate as an automatic dismissal of the appeal on default. The Tribunal considered the appellants' financial difficulty and, on that basis, extended the time for deposit and accepted the amount already deposited. The operative effect was that the belated pre-deposit was treated as valid and the delay stood condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in making the pre-deposit directed under the stay order should be condoned and the belated deposit accepted.

Analysis: The direction for deposit did not operate as an automatic dismissal of the appeal on default. In the circumstances placed before the Tribunal, including the appellants' financial difficulty, it was considered appropriate to extend the time fixed for deposit and to accept the amount already deposited.

Conclusion: The delay in making the pre-deposit was condoned and the pre-deposit was accepted.

---