In the case Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc, why was the application for an extension dismissed?
Understand the Problem
The question is asking for the reason why the application for an extension in the case of Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc was dismissed. It lists several possible options, and we need to identify which one is correct based on the specifics of the case.
Answer
The application was dismissed because it was made after the time period expired, violating Rule 7.6(3).
The application for an extension was dismissed because it was made after the stipulated period had run out, and Rule 7.6(3) precluded the court from extending the time on these grounds.
Answer for screen readers
The application for an extension was dismissed because it was made after the stipulated period had run out, and Rule 7.6(3) precluded the court from extending the time on these grounds.
More Information
The court's strict adherence to procedural rules emphasized the importance of complying with prescribed deadlines, as the rule explicitly prevented any extension once the period had lapsed.
Tips
A common mistake is not checking the specific rules regarding time extensions and assuming courts have discretion in all situations.
Sources
AI-generated content may contain errors. Please verify critical information
