Kennett & Anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors (No 8) [2007] NSWIRComm 239

Kennett & Anor v Mayrana Pty Ltd and Ors (No 8) [2007] NSWIRComm 239

Leave to adduce further evidence from Professor Kennett was refused because the application was made very late, after Professor Kennett, Mr Pak and other relevant witnesses had given evidence and after other evidentiary motions had been dealt with; the applicants gave no proper explanation for not raising the matters or document earlier; and justice did not permit a further indulgence taking the applicants' case in another direction merely because further ideas had arisen at that stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Notice of Motion for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence / Reasons for Refusal of the Applicants' Motion Filed on 19 September 2007
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'recall of Witness' 'case Management Directions' 'late Evidence']
['industrial Relations' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'recall of Witness' 'case Management Directions' 'late 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

Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Notice of Motion for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence / Reasons for Refusal of the Applicants' Motion Filed on 19 September 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to adduce further evidence from Professor Kennett after he and other witnesses had already given evidence.' 'Whether asserted admissibility and relevance of a document was sufficient to justify leave to adduce late further evidence despite earlier directions and lack of explanation for delay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce further evidence from Professor Kennett was refused because the application was made very late, after Professor Kennett, Mr Pak and other relevant witnesses had given evidence and after other evidentiary motions had been dealt with; the applicants gave no proper explanation for not raising the matters or document earlier; and justice did not permit a further indulgence taking the applicants' case in another direction merely because further ideas had arisen at that stage.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["The applicants' motion for leave to adduce further evidence from Professor Kennett was refused."]