Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] FCA 263

Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] FCA 263

Leave was granted because the further evidence was directly relevant to the applicant's pleaded case concerning the flow of funds, was linked to evidence and issues already canvassed, was not shown to be insubstantial or futile, did not take the respondents by surprise, and any prejudice to the respondents was not shown to be incapable of remedy; the interests of justice favoured allowing the evidence to be put before the Court subject to cross-examination, with the applicant paying the respondents' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding; Interlocutory Application to Re Open the Applicant's Case to Lead Further Evidence / After the Close of Evidence From All Parties and Before Final Submissions and Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; applicant to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Case' 'further Evidence After Close of Evidence' 'prejudice' 'interests of Justice' "flow of Investors' Funds in Investment Scheme"]
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'representative Proceedings'] ['application to Re Open Case' 'further Evidence After Close of Evidence' 'prejudice' 'interests of Justice' "flow of Investors' Funds in Investment Scheme"]

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

Representative Proceeding; Interlocutory Application to Re Open the Applicant's Case to Lead Further Evidence / After the Close of Evidence From All Parties and Before Final Submissions and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to re-open his case after the close of evidence to lead the affidavits of John Frost and Walter Van Nieuwkuyk.' 'Whether admitting the further evidence would cause undue or irremediable prejudice to the respondents.' 'Whether the further evidence was sufficiently relevant to issues already canvassed concerning the flow of investors\' funds in the "Crazy For You" Investment Scheme.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the further evidence was directly relevant to the applicant's pleaded case concerning the flow of funds, was linked to evidence and issues already canvassed, was not shown to be insubstantial or futile, did not take the respondents by surprise, and any prejudice to the respondents was not shown to be incapable of remedy; the interests of justice favoured allowing the evidence to be put before the Court subject to cross-examination, with the applicant paying the respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted; applicant to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the applicant to re-open his case for the purpose of leading the further evidence set out in the affidavits of John Frost sworn on 26 February 2003 and Walter Van Nieuwkuyk sworn on 27 February 2003.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application."]