Tru Floor Service Pty Ltd v Jenkins (No 3) [2006] FCA 738

Tru Floor Service Pty Ltd v Jenkins (No 3) [2006] FCA 738

The application to re-open was refused because there was no explanation why the financial documents exhibited to Ms Mann's affidavit could not have been retrieved much earlier, receiving them would require recalling three witnesses and would dislocate the proceedings, and it was unreasonable and unfair to the defendants for the plaintiffs to seek to rely on the affidavit on the eighth day of trial and then re-open the matter on the ninth day after an adverse ruling.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Ruling During Trial on Plaintiffs' Application to Re Open a Matter and for Leave to File and Serve Affidavits
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open' 'leave to File and Serve Affidavit During Trial' 'late Evidence' 'recall of Witnesses for Cross Examination' 'trial Management and Fairness']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['application to Re Open' 'leave to File and Serve Affidavit During Trial' 'late Evidence' 'recall of Witnesses for Cross Examination' 'trial Management and Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Civil Proceeding / Ruling During Trial on Plaintiffs' Application to Re Open a Matter and for Leave to File and Serve Affidavits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to re-open the matter after an adverse ruling refusing receipt of Ms Mann's affidavit." "Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave during trial to file and serve Ms Mann's affidavit and further affidavits explaining the late production of documents."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-open was refused because there was no explanation why the financial documents exhibited to Ms Mann's affidavit could not have been retrieved much earlier, receiving them would require recalling three witnesses and would dislocate the proceedings, and it was unreasonable and unfair to the defendants for the plaintiffs to seek to rely on the affidavit on the eighth day of trial and then re-open the matter on the ninth day after an adverse ruling.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to re-open the matter is refused.']