It is true that some meaning must be accorded to the fixing of a date of a preliminary inquiry or for a final "peremptorily". As used by the presiding Judge on 19th August it meant, as Lopes L.J. said in Falck v. Axthelm (1889), 24 Q.B.D. 174 at 177: "… that the order for extension of time is given on the footing that it is to be final unless some very special and urgent circumstances are brought forward as a reason for offering it".
"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.