Admar Computers Pty Ltd v Ezy Systems Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 885

Admar Computers Pty Ltd v Ezy Systems Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 885

The application for leave to file and rely on the further affidavits was refused because the prejudice and potential injustice to the respondents from the further delay and reopening of factual issues (which could not be remedied by costs) outweighed the prejudice to the applicant from inability to adduce the evidence, especially given the commercial and personal impact on the first respondent and its officers.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence
Outcome
Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused. Application to strike out further particulars dismissed.
Legal Topics
['admission of Further Evidence' 'case Management' 'prejudice' 'adjournment' 'trial by Affidavit']
['practice and Procedure'] ['admission of Further Evidence' 'case Management' 'prejudice' 'adjournment' 'trial by Affidavit']

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence via affidavits of Mr Gilbert and Dr Yeh' 'Whether admitting the further evidence would cause irremediable prejudice to the respondents' "Whether the respondents' application to strike out the further particulars should be granted"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to file and rely on the further affidavits was refused because the prejudice and potential injustice to the respondents from the further delay and reopening of factual issues (which could not be remedied by costs) outweighed the prejudice to the applicant from inability to adduce the evidence, especially given the commercial and personal impact on the first respondent and its officers.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused. Application to strike out further particulars dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave not given to applicant to file or adduce the evidence of Dr Chung‑Hsing Yeh in his affidavit sworn 29 August 1997 and Adrian Brandon Gilbert in his affidavit sworn 29 August 1997.' "Application that paragraphs 1 and/or 2 of the applicant's further and better particulars of paragraph 6A of the amended...