Nyoni v Pharmacy Board of Australia (No 5) [2017] FCA 1282

Nyoni v Pharmacy Board of Australia (No 5) [2017] FCA 1282

It was in the interests of justice to permit Mr Nyoni, a litigant in person who did not have access to the unreported English decision White when making closing submissions, to re-open only to make responsive submissions distinguishing White, because White was plainly relevant and adverse to him and his foreshadowed arguments had an arguable basis. Re-opening was refused for the proposed argument that White raised an issue outside the statement of issues because absolute privilege was already an issue in the proceeding and White concerned that same defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application to Re Open / Application to Re Open After Oral Closing Submissions
Outcome
Application to re-open granted in part on a limited basis; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open' 'litigant in Person' 'absolute Privilege' 'fair Opportunity to Address Authority']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['application to Re Open' 'litigant in Person' 'absolute Privilege' 'fair Opportunity to Address Authority']

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

Practice and Procedure; Application to Re Open / Application to Re Open After Oral Closing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to re-open his case after oral closing submissions to address White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 825 (QB).' 'Whether White raised an issue beyond the statement of issues settled by the Court.' 'Whether the applicant should be allowed to make submissions distinguishing White from the circumstances of his case.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was in the interests of justice to permit Mr Nyoni, a litigant in person who did not have access to the unreported English decision White when making closing submissions, to re-open only to make responsive submissions distinguishing White, because White was plainly relevant and adverse to him and his foreshadowed arguments had an arguable basis. Re-opening was refused for the proposed argument that White raised an issue outside the statement of issues because absolute privilege was already an issue in the proceeding and White concerned that same defence.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open granted in part on a limited basis; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicant has leave to re-open his case to the extent permitted by order 2.' 'By 4 pm on 10 November 2017, the applicant file and serve any responsive submissions in relation to the case of White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 825 (QB).' 'The submissions referred to in order 2 are not...