Environment Protection Authority v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 78

Environment Protection Authority v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 78

Leave was granted because the proposed evidence was largely an amplification of Mr Mitchell's existing evidence and relevant to understanding the circumstances of the incident; although late service caused inherent prejudice, the Defendant did not identify a direct and irredeemable prejudice, and any prejudice could be accommodated within the fixed hearing without unduly compromising efficient management and conduct of the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Proceedings / Application by Prosecutor for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Served Late
Outcome
Leave granted in part to the Prosecutor to adduce further evidence from Mr Mitchell.
Legal Topics
['leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'late Service of Evidence' 'disclosure Requirements' 'efficient Management and Conduct of Hearing' 'prejudice to Defendant']
['evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['leave to Adduce Further Evidence' 'late Service of Evidence' 'disclosure Requirements' 'efficient Management and Conduct of Hearing' 'prejudice to Defendant']

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

Class 5 Proceedings / Application by Prosecutor for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Served Late

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Prosecutor should be granted leave to adduce further evidence from Mr Mitchell where the substance of the evidence was served two working days before the hearing.' 'Whether the late-served evidence would cause prejudice to the Defendant that could not be satisfactorily cured.' 'Whether allowing the evidence would compromise the efficient management and conduct of the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the proposed evidence was largely an amplification of Mr Mitchell's existing evidence and relevant to understanding the circumstances of the incident; although late service caused inherent prejudice, the Defendant did not identify a direct and irredeemable prejudice, and any prejudice could be accommodated within the fixed hearing without unduly compromising efficient management and conduct of the hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part to the Prosecutor to adduce further evidence from Mr Mitchell.

Orders

  • ['The Prosecutor is granted leave to adduce evidence dealing with the subject matter of the evidence notified by way of conference note.' 'Leave does not extend to the last sentence of [13] of the conference note.' 'The reference in [17] to the service valve should be a reference to a gauge.' 'Leave does not extend...