Johnstone, Raymond v Guss, Joseph [1997] FCA 569

Johnstone, Raymond v Guss, Joseph [1997] FCA 569

It is not appropriate to allow the case to be reopened after judgment has been reserved where the applicant seeks to cure a deficiency in his case by procuring the existence of new evidence after the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application to Reopen After Hearing and Before Delivery of Reserved Judgment
Outcome
application to reopen refused
Legal Topics
['reopening Cases After Judgment Reserved' 'admissibility of New Evidence After Hearing']
['bankruptcy'] ['reopening Cases After Judgment Reserved' 'admissibility of New Evidence After Hearing']

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

Bankruptcy / Application to Reopen After Hearing and Before Delivery of Reserved Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the debtor should be allowed to reopen his case after judgment has been reserved in order to rely on new proceedings issued against him']

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate to allow the case to be reopened after judgment has been reserved where the applicant seeks to cure a deficiency in his case by procuring the existence of new evidence after the hearing.

Court Disposition

application to reopen refused

Orders

  • ["The debtor must pay the creditor's costs of the application."]