The court found that the 2nd Respondent's advocate was present through a colleague who held brief and expressly consented to the grant of the orders for extension of time. The principal advocate did not provide evidence of limited instructions to the advocate holding brief. The court held that it is presumed an advocate holding brief has full instructions, and the consent order entered into is binding. There was no error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient reason to review or set aside the orders of 17th November, 2014. The application for review was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.