Kennedy v Stockland Developments Pty Ltd (No 6) [2012] NSWLEC 34

Kennedy v Stockland Developments Pty Ltd (No 6) [2012] NSWLEC 34

Leave to reopen was refused because the purported evidence (the deed) was not relevant to the pleaded case, its late admission would cause real prejudice to the respondent who could not test or verify its status, and no proper explanation was given for the delay in obtaining and serving the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Reopen Case During Final Submissions
Outcome
Leave to reopen refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Reopen Case' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prejudice to Party' 'delay in Application']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Reopen Case' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prejudice to Party' 'delay in Application']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Reopen Case During Final Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to reopen case to admit further evidence' 'Whether the interests of justice are better served by allowing or rejecting reopening' 'Relevance of the deed to pleaded issues' 'Prejudice to respondent from late evidence' 'Reasons for delay in obtaining evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused because the purported evidence (the deed) was not relevant to the pleaded case, its late admission would cause real prejudice to the respondent who could not test or verify its status, and no proper explanation was given for the delay in obtaining and serving the evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to reopen refused

Orders

  • ["Applicant's application for leave to reopen case is refused"]