Mallegowda v Sood (No. 5) [2017] NSWDC 470

Mallegowda v Sood (No. 5) [2017] NSWDC 470

Given the nature, extent, and lateness of the defendants’ notice of motion, including voluminous documentation and requirement for expert evidence and cross-examination, it is not feasible to deal with the application prior to the trial’s conclusion. The application is stood over to the trial, defendants are advised that leave to call the new witness will permit the plaintiff to call evidence in reply, regardless of possible adjournments, and all applications for subpoenas and witness calling must comply with procedural orders. The court prioritised fairness, finality, and efficient use of resources; late applications can be permitted only with compelling justification, which was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Orders on Notice of Motion, Procedural Management During Part Heard Trial
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion stood over to trial; costs reserved; procedural directions issued.
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'late Amendment to Pleadings' 'evidence Admissibility']
['tort' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamation' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'late Amendment to Pleadings' 'evidence Admissibility']

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

Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Orders on Notice of Motion, Procedural Management During Part Heard Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should leave be granted to defendants to call new witness and adduce further evidence late in proceedings?' 'Should leave be granted for late amendments to pleadings and for further cross-examination of prior witnesses?' 'Procedural fairness in allowing late applications affecting trial timetable and party prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the nature, extent, and lateness of the defendants’ notice of motion, including voluminous documentation and requirement for expert evidence and cross-examination, it is not feasible to deal with the application prior to the trial’s conclusion. The application is stood over to the trial, defendants are advised that leave to call the new witness will permit the plaintiff to call evidence in reply, regardless of possible adjournments, and all applications for subpoenas and witness calling must comply with procedural orders. The court prioritised fairness, finality, and efficient use of resources; late applications can be permitted only with compelling justification, which was not...

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion stood over to trial; costs reserved; procedural directions issued.

Orders

  • ["Stand over the defendants' notice of motion to the trial on 9 August 2017, by reason of the nature of the application, extent of documentation and its lateness." 'Costs reserved.' 'Note that the defendants have been advised that if they are granted leave to call Mr Raghu Hassan Mallegowda at the hearing, the...