Independent compliance in pre-deposit conditions governs dismissal; one unit's default cannot automatically defeat another's appeal.

An appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit or stay condition attributable to a different entity when the appellant's own compliance is not the legal basis for dismissal. The Tribunal accepted that the connected appellant's default could not automatically prejudice the present appellant and held that the appeal required independent consideration. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal of one unit could be dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition imposed on another unit, and whether the dismissed appeal deserved restoration.

Analysis: The dismissal was founded on the view that failure by one applicant to comply with the stay order carried the same consequence for the connected appellant, since compliance by the other unit had been treated as a condition for grant of stay. On examination of the record, the Tribunal found merit in the contention that the appellant's appeal ought not to have suffered for non-compliance by another company and that the appellant's case required independent consideration.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal of the appellant was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition attributable to a different entity unless the appellant's own compliance is the legal basis for dismissal.

---