CAS v TAL Life Ltd (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 118

CAS v TAL Life Ltd (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 118

The respondent was refused leave to file further evidence because it had ample opportunity to put on its evidence within the directed timetable, the proposed evidence was not shown to be necessary to resolve the issues, any weaknesses in the applicant's evidence could be addressed by objection or cross-examination, and allowing the evidence would prejudice the applicant by delaying the proceedings and potentially causing additional expense.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Discrimination Complaint / Respondent's Application to File Further Evidence After the Applicant Had Filed Evidence in Reply
Outcome
The respondent's application to file further evidence after the applicant had filed evidence in reply was refused.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'income Protection Insurance' 'directions for Filing and Service of Evidence' 'leave to File Further Evidence' 'prejudice and Delay' 'actuarial or Statistical Data Defence']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['disability Discrimination' 'income Protection Insurance' 'directions for Filing and Service of Evidence' 'leave to File Further Evidence' 'prejudice and Delay' 'actuarial or Statistical Data Defence']

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

Procedural Ruling in Discrimination Complaint / Respondent's Application to File Further Evidence After the Applicant Had Filed Evidence in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should be permitted to file further evidence after the timetable for evidence had been completed and after the applicant had filed evidence in reply.' 'Whether further evidence from Ms Molloy concerning material produced under summons should be allowed.' "Whether further evidence from Professor John Lambert responding to the applicant's medical experts should be allowed." 'Whether allowing further evidence would prejudice the applicant by causing delay and possible additional expense.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was refused leave to file further evidence because it had ample opportunity to put on its evidence within the directed timetable, the proposed evidence was not shown to be necessary to resolve the issues, any weaknesses in the applicant's evidence could be addressed by objection or cross-examination, and allowing the evidence would prejudice the applicant by delaying the proceedings and potentially causing additional expense.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application to file further evidence after the applicant had filed evidence in reply was refused.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's application to file further evidence after the Applicant has filed its evidence in reply is refused."]