Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 15) [2013] NSWSC 1178

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 15) [2013] NSWSC 1178

The application was refused because the Plaintiffs had been given repeated opportunities to identify and call reply evidence, had not made arrangements for Mr Jerogin or Mr Sainsbury to attend despite the hearing timetable, and a further delay was inappropriate. In any event, most of the proposed evidence would be inadmissible under earlier rulings concerning similar evidence, and it was not apparent that Mr Jerogin's proposed evidence about Red Lion Laundries would be evidence in reply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Plaintiffs' Application for Witnesses in Reply to Give Evidence at a Later Time
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application refused.
Legal Topics
['witnesses in Reply' 'availability of Witnesses' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'case Management']
['procedure' 'evidence'] ['witnesses in Reply' 'availability of Witnesses' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'case Management']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Plaintiffs' Application for Witnesses in Reply to Give Evidence at a Later Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Jerogin and Mr Sainsbury should be permitted to give evidence in reply at a later time because of their unavailability.' 'Whether the proposed evidence from Mr Jerogin and Mr Sainsbury would be admissible evidence in reply.' 'Whether the Plaintiffs had made adequate arrangements to have their reply witnesses available during the time fixed for hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Plaintiffs had been given repeated opportunities to identify and call reply evidence, had not made arrangements for Mr Jerogin or Mr Sainsbury to attend despite the hearing timetable, and a further delay was inappropriate. In any event, most of the proposed evidence would be inadmissible under earlier rulings concerning similar evidence, and it was not apparent that Mr Jerogin's proposed evidence about Red Lion Laundries would be evidence in reply.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application refused.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiffs' application for Mr Jerogin and Mr Sainsbury to give evidence at a later time is declined."]