Williams, A.C. & Ors v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1995] FCA 322

Williams, A.C. & Ors v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1995] FCA 322

Leave was granted because, although the applicants had inadequately prepared and gave no explanation for the late valuation evidence, an adjournment was inevitable due to court listing requirements, which lessened the prejudice and surprise to the respondent, and the interests of justice required the applicants' case to be properly and fully ventilated given the substantial amounts and issues involved. The respondent's inconvenience could be mitigated by limiting the evidence, setting report deadlines, and ordering the applicants to pay the respondent's resulting costs on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Adduce Further Expert Valuation Evidence / During Hearing, Before Applicants Closed Their Case
Outcome
Application for leave to adduce further limited valuation evidence granted on conditions.
Legal Topics
['leave to Call Further Expert Evidence' 'valuation Evidence' 'late Notice of Expert Evidence' 'prejudice' 'adjournment' 'indemnity Costs' 'administration of Justice']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Call Further Expert Evidence' 'valuation Evidence' 'late Notice of Expert Evidence' 'prejudice' 'adjournment' 'indemnity Costs' 'administration of Justice']

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 for Leave to Adduce Further Expert Valuation Evidence / During Hearing, Before Applicants Closed Their Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to call further expert evidence from Mr Nelson as to valuation of 4 to 18 Gertrude Street, Arncliffe, as a consolidated site.' 'Whether prejudice to the respondent from late expert evidence was reduced by the inevitable adjournment due to court listing requirements.' 'Whether an indemnity costs order was an adequate response to inconvenience and additional costs caused by the late evidence.' 'How the public interest in the administration of justice should affect the exercise of discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because, although the applicants had inadequately prepared and gave no explanation for the late valuation evidence, an adjournment was inevitable due to court listing requirements, which lessened the prejudice and surprise to the respondent, and the interests of justice required the applicants' case to be properly and fully ventilated given the substantial amounts and issues involved. The respondent's inconvenience could be mitigated by limiting the evidence, setting report deadlines, and ordering the applicants to pay the respondent's resulting costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to adduce further limited valuation evidence granted on conditions.

Orders

  • ['A written valuation report be furnished to the respondent within ten (10) days from today.' "The respondent shall furnish any valuation in reply within 21 days after being furnished with the applicants' report." "The applicants shall pay the respondent's costs caused by or arising from this application to adduce...