The court found that, although there had been a delay since the matter was last in court in September 2012, the plaintiff had made attempts to have the matter listed for hearing. The court considered the interests of justice and determined that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to prosecute the case. The court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, instead directing the plaintiff to comply with pre-trial procedures within 30 days and to fix the matter for hearing once the court diary was open. The court held that the delay was not so inordinate or inexcusable as to warrant the drastic remedy of dismissal, particularly where the plaintiff had demonstrated ongoing interest in the matter.