MILLER v BONYHADY and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 143

MILLER v BONYHADY and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 143

Leave to adduce further evidence was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing and would raise no more than a possibility as to the genuineness of exhibit 5, thus there was no affront to commonsense or justice in refusing leave.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Miller; Respondent: Bonyhady
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence Within Appeal; Final Disposition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Procedural Orders
Civil Procedure Fresh Evidence on Appeal Procedural Orders

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miller

Appellant

Bonyhady

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence Within Appeal; Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce fresh evidence on appeal under s75A Supreme Court Act, 1970.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce further evidence was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing and would raise no more than a possibility as to the genuineness of exhibit 5, thus there was no affront to commonsense or justice in refusing leave.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.