Preston v Harbour Pacific Underwriting Management Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 216

Preston v Harbour Pacific Underwriting Management Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 216

The appellant failed to establish that fresh evidence could not have been procured by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the trial. Both the appellant and certain respondents defaulted in discovery, but as the appellant also failed to meet discovery obligations, the principles in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade did not assist him. The requirements for a new trial were not satisfied, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['new Trial' 'fresh Evidence' 'discovery' 'defamation']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['new Trial' 'fresh Evidence' 'discovery' 'defamation']

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

Appeal / Final Appellate Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the discovery of fresh evidence justifies a new trial' 'Whether reasonable diligence was exercised to obtain the evidence prior to trial' 'Whether defaults in discovery justify setting aside the verdict']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish that fresh evidence could not have been procured by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the trial. Both the appellant and certain respondents defaulted in discovery, but as the appellant also failed to meet discovery obligations, the principles in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade did not assist him. The requirements for a new trial were not satisfied, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']