Hare v Harmer [2010] NSWDC 102

Hare v Harmer [2010] NSWDC 102

Leave to re-open was refused because the application was made at a very late stage after two hearings and an appeal, the proposed evidence concerned an ambiguity that should have been addressed earlier, re-opening would cause further delay and expense to a seriously disabled plaintiff, and the proposed evidence was unlikely to have a significant impact on the issues given the court's reasons for rejecting Mr Bailey's further opinion evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2010
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Leave to Re Open and Final Orders After Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
The defendant's application for leave to re-open was dismissed and verdict and judgment were entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,301,437.94, with costs orders against the defendant.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Re Open' 'finality of Litigation' 'prejudice' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'costs'] ['application for Leave to Re Open' 'finality of Litigation' 'prejudice' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity Costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Leave to Re Open and Final Orders After Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted further leave to re-open to lead evidence from Detective Inspector Barr about the point at which tyre marks commenced on the roundabout.' 'Whether the proposed evidence was sufficiently relevant and capable of having a significant impact on the issues to justify re-opening at a late stage.' 'Whether prejudice, delay and expense to the plaintiff weighed against granting leave to re-open.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to re-open was refused because the application was made at a very late stage after two hearings and an appeal, the proposed evidence concerned an ambiguity that should have been addressed earlier, re-opening would cause further delay and expense to a seriously disabled plaintiff, and the proposed evidence was unlikely to have a significant impact on the issues given the court's reasons for rejecting Mr Bailey's further opinion evidence.

Court Disposition

The defendant's application for leave to re-open was dismissed and verdict and judgment were entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,301,437.94, with costs orders against the defendant.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's application for leave to re-open is dismissed." 'Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,301,437.94.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on an ordinary basis up to and including 2 November 2007 and on an indemnity basis thereafter." 'The orders are...