Dunning v Dunning [2012] NSWSC 23

Dunning v Dunning [2012] NSWSC 23

Leave to reopen was refused because all of the material Ms Dunning wished to tender could have been used when the matter was originally argued, and there was no basis consistent with authority to permit relitigation of an issue already decided. In any event, the proposed material would not lead to a different result because it did not establish a formal change in the childcare arrangements and was largely consistent with Mr Dunning's position that the shared care arrangement had not changed until 1 January 2009.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Reopen Evidence / Notice of Motion After Judgment on a Separate Question
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for leave to reopen dismissed.
Legal Topics
['reopening Evidence After Judgment' 'separate Question' 'finality of Litigation' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 36.16(1)']
['civil Procedure'] ['reopening Evidence After Judgment' 'separate Question' 'finality of Litigation' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 36.16(1)']

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

Application for Leave to Reopen Evidence / Notice of Motion After Judgment on a Separate Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be given leave to reopen the evidence to admit further evidence after judgment.' 'Whether the interests of justice favoured reopening where the proposed evidence was available at the original hearing.' 'Whether the proposed evidence was likely to produce a different result.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused because all of the material Ms Dunning wished to tender could have been used when the matter was originally argued, and there was no basis consistent with authority to permit relitigation of an issue already decided. In any event, the proposed material would not lead to a different result because it did not establish a formal change in the childcare arrangements and was largely consistent with Mr Dunning's position that the shared care arrangement had not changed until 1 January 2009.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for leave to reopen dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Ms Dunning's application for leave to reopen should be dismissed."]