Alexakis v Masters [2022] NSWSC 1256

Alexakis v Masters [2022] NSWSC 1256

Leave to re-open the case is refused because, although the letter is relevant, it is not of sufficient probative value or importance to outweigh the consequential delay, expense, and the public and private interest in the finality of litigation, especially in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Peter Alexakis; First Defendant/cross Claimant/cross Defendant: Gary Masters; Second Defendant/fourth Cross Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Frank Camilleri; Third Defendant/second Cross Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Hildegard Schwanke; Fourth Defendant/third Cross Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Irmgard (Marianne) Schwanke; Interested Party: P Rogers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Equity (estate Dispute) / Application to Re Open Case After Judgment Reserved
Outcome
Application for leave to re-open refused
Legal Topics
Application to Re Open Case, Adducing Further Evidence After Hearing, Finality of Litigation, Probative Value and Prejudice
Civil Procedure Equity Succession Law Application to Re Open Case Adducing Further Evidence After Hearing Finality of Litigation Probative Value and Prejudice

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Alexakis

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Gary Masters

First Defendant/cross Claimant/cross Defendant

Frank Camilleri

Second Defendant/fourth Cross Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Hildegard Schwanke

Third Defendant/second Cross Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Irmgard (Marianne) Schwanke

Fourth Defendant/third Cross Defendant/second Cross Claimant

P Rogers

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Equity (estate Dispute) / Application to Re Open Case After Judgment Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to re-open his case to adduce further evidence (a letter) after judgment is reserved

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to re-open the case is refused because, although the letter is relevant, it is not of sufficient probative value or importance to outweigh the consequential delay, expense, and the public and private interest in the finality of litigation, especially in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to re-open refused

Orders

  • Plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 30 June 2022 is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.