Hinkley v de Vries [2006] NSWSC 1048

Hinkley v de Vries [2006] NSWSC 1048

The application to reopen was refused because the relevant sequence of documents had already been set out in an earlier affidavit, the plaintiff had agreed with that sequence in cross-examination, and the further statement in the later affidavit did not raise any significant issue justifying reopening the plaintiff's case for cross-examination of Mr de Vries.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Reopen the Plaintiff's Case / After Submissions and Decision Reserved
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['re Opening Case' 'cross Examination' 'postal Acceptance Rule']
['civil Procedure'] ['re Opening Case' 'cross Examination' 'postal Acceptance Rule']

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 to Reopen the Plaintiff's Case / After Submissions and Decision Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's case should be reopened after submissions and reservation of decision to permit cross-examination of the defendant about which version of an agreement was sent under cover of which letter."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen was refused because the relevant sequence of documents had already been set out in an earlier affidavit, the plaintiff had agreed with that sequence in cross-examination, and the further statement in the later affidavit did not raise any significant issue justifying reopening the plaintiff's case for cross-examination of Mr de Vries.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']