Drinkwater v Caddyrack Pty. Limited [1999] NSWSC 218

Drinkwater v Caddyrack Pty. Limited [1999] NSWSC 218

Leave to reopen was refused because the Court was not persuaded that the affidavits supporting the application justified reopening the defendants' evidence. The material was available to Mr Pritchard at the time of the hearing, should have been served earlier under existing procedural directions, and reopening would likely require further expert consideration, further cross-examination, possible additional plaintiffs' evidence, considerable additional hearing time, and disruption of the reserved hearing date, in circumstances where the defendants had already obtained a vacation of an earlier hearing date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Application in an Enquiry as to the Valuation of Shares / Application by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants for Leave to Reopen Their Case After Oral Evidence Had Concluded and Before Written Submissions
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Reopen Case' 'share Valuation Enquiry' 'compliance With Procedural Directions' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'corporations'] ['leave to Reopen Case' 'share Valuation Enquiry' 'compliance With Procedural Directions' 'costs']

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 in an Enquiry as to the Valuation of Shares / Application by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants for Leave to Reopen Their Case After Oral Evidence Had Concluded and Before Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fifth and sixth defendants should be granted leave to reopen their case in the share valuation enquiry.' "Whether the absence from an accountant's affidavit of material on which he relied justified reopening the evidence after the oral hearing had concluded."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused because the Court was not persuaded that the affidavits supporting the application justified reopening the defendants' evidence. The material was available to Mr Pritchard at the time of the hearing, should have been served earlier under existing procedural directions, and reopening would likely require further expert consideration, further cross-examination, possible additional plaintiffs' evidence, considerable additional hearing time, and disruption of the reserved hearing date, in circumstances where the defendants had already obtained a vacation of an earlier hearing date.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application of the fifth and sixth defendants that they have leave to re-open their case in the enquiry was refused.' 'The fifth and sixth defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second plaintiffs of the application.' 'Leave was granted to the first and second plaintiffs to proceed forthwith...