Gaskin v Ollerenshaw [2010] NSWSC 788

Gaskin v Ollerenshaw [2010] NSWSC 788

Leave to reopen was granted because, although the matter was finely balanced and some prejudice to the defendant arose from having to deal with the motion and further evidence, the evidence was new despite reasonable diligence, was in short compass, concerned a central issue, could be taken without delaying the reserved judgment or affecting other litigants, and any prejudice could be remedied by indemnity costs; the interests of justice and the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues were best served by allowing the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Proceeding; Application to Reopen the Plaintiff's Case / After Evidence and Submissions Concluded and Judgment Reserved
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to reopen the proceedings granted.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Trial' 'reserved Judgment' 'further Evidence' 'interests of Justice' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'personal Injury'] ['application to Reopen Trial' 'reserved Judgment' 'further Evidence' 'interests of Justice' 'overriding Purpose']

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

Civil Personal Injury Proceeding; Application to Reopen the Plaintiff's Case / After Evidence and Submissions Concluded and Judgment Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should have leave to reopen the proceedings to adduce further evidence from Mrs Katharine Whiteley after judgment had been reserved.' 'Whether admitting the further evidence would cause unfair prejudice to the defendant or be contrary to the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was granted because, although the matter was finely balanced and some prejudice to the defendant arose from having to deal with the motion and further evidence, the evidence was new despite reasonable diligence, was in short compass, concerned a central issue, could be taken without delaying the reserved judgment or affecting other litigants, and any prejudice could be remedied by indemnity costs; the interests of justice and the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues were best served by allowing the application.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to reopen the proceedings granted.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff have leave to reopen the proceedings to adduce the additional evidence of Mrs Katharine Whiteley referred to in her affidavit of 7 July 2010.' 'The plaintiff pay all of the costs of and associated with the notice of motion and the taking of the additional evidence on an indemnity basis.']