MI Design P/L v Dunecar P/L [2000] NSWSC 968

MI Design P/L v Dunecar P/L [2000] NSWSC 968

Leave to file the further affidavit was refused because the application was made after evidence had closed in urgent interlocutory proceedings, the material sought to be adduced lacked sufficient cogency, the accounting issue was substantially reflected in the Agreed Statement of Facts, admission would likely cause further evidence, cost and delay, and refusal better served the overriding purpose of a just, quick and cheap resolution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Urgent Interlocutory Application Concerning Reinstatement of a Lessee / First Defendant's Application for Leave to File a Further Affidavit Seven Days After Evidence Closed
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['late Filing of Affidavit' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'overriding Purpose' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution' 'affidavit Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['late Filing of Affidavit' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'overriding Purpose' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution' 'affidavit Evidence']

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

Equity Proceedings; Urgent Interlocutory Application Concerning Reinstatement of a Lessee / First Defendant's Application for Leave to File a Further Affidavit Seven Days After Evidence Closed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be given to the First Defendant to file a further affidavit after evidence had closed in urgent interlocutory proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed further affidavit was sufficiently cogent and necessary to justify the delay, cost and potential prejudice from admitting it.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the further affidavit was refused because the application was made after evidence had closed in urgent interlocutory proceedings, the material sought to be adduced lacked sufficient cogency, the accounting issue was substantially reflected in the Agreed Statement of Facts, admission would likely cause further evidence, cost and delay, and refusal better served the overriding purpose of a just, quick and cheap resolution.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The First Defendant was not permitted to file the late affidavit.']