It is my view that the Master should have considered that as the jury notice had not been delivered before the close of pleadings under Rule 47.01, no jury notice had been delivered at all. It was therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff to either bring a motion for leave under Nikore v. Proper, or a motion to extend time to serve and file a jury notice. The plaintiff in this action has done neither. Without a motion, the Master erred at law when he made the order.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.