Justice Lindsay said this : On or about 6 August 2012, [the neighbours] were also given “”[5] written notice of the dates allocated by the Court for the hearing of the plaintiffs' application. Four neighbours (the registered proprietors of lots 4 and 5) have expressly granted their consent to the application. Two others (the registered proprietors of lot 3) have expressly advised the solicitor for the plaintiffs that they have no objection to the application. The remaining neighbours (the registered proprietors of lot 2) have simply accepted service of the plaintiffs' documentation without more than an acknowledgement of receipt. …….. [8] The defendants do not oppose the plaintiffs' application, but they have been reluctant to consent to it lest, by their consent, they might be criticised by their neighbours, the owners of lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 [9] If the defendants ever had any exposure to risk of adverse action at the hands of aggrieved registered proprietors of those lots, that exposure has been substantially diminished, if not entirely eliminated, by the responses of those neighbours to these proceedings [10] None have sought to be heard in opposition to the application. Four have expressly recorded their consent. Two have expressly recorded an absence of objection. The remaining neighbours have maintained a silence which might, at least, pass for an absence of objection……..”
Justice Lindsay said this : “”[5] On or about 6 August 2012, [the neighbours] were also given written notice of the dates allocated by the Court for the hearing of the plaintiffs' application. Four neighbours (the registered proprietors of lots 4 and 5) have expressly granted their consent to the application. Two others (the registered proprietors of lot 3) have expressly advised the solicitor for the plaintiffs that they have no objection to the application. The remaining neighbours (the registered proprietors of lot 2) have simply accepted service of the plaintiffs' documentation without more than an acknowledgement of receipt. …….. [8] The defendants do not oppose the plaintiffs' application, but they have been reluctant to consent to it lest, by their consent, they might be criticised by their neighbours, the owners of lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 [9] If the defendants ever had any exposure to risk of adverse action at the hands of aggrieved registered proprietors of those lots, that exposure has been substantially diminished, if not entirely eliminated, by the responses of those neighbours to these proceedings [10] None have sought to be heard in opposition to the application. Four have expressly recorded their consent. Two have expressly recorded an absence of objection. The remaining neighbours have maintained a silence which might, at least, pass for an absence of objection……..”