Maule v Liporoni & Anor [2002] NSWLEC 197

The fresh allegations sought to be raised are not supported by Mr Allen's evidence, and allowing them would cause undue waste of time and unfair prejudice to the respondents. The evidence was available to the applicant before the hearing commenced. The court, exercising its discretion under s 135 of Evidence Act 1995, declines to allow the amendment and the late evidence.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 December 2001
Procedural Posture: Practice and Procedure / Application to Adduce Late Evidence and Further Amend the Further Amended Points of Claim
Outcome: Application refused
Legal Topics: ['late Evidence' 'amendment of Pleadings' "exercise of Court's Discretion"]

['practice and Procedure'] ['late Evidence' 'amendment of Pleadings' "exercise of Court's Discretion"]

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

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Application to Adduce Late Evidence and Further Amend the Further Amended Points of Claim

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether leave should be granted to adduce late evidence from Mr J W Allen' 'Whether leave should be granted to further amend the Further Amended Points of Claim to include new allegations of mala fides']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

["Leave to further amend the applicant's Further Amended Points of Claim is refused." 'Leave to adduce evidence of Mr J W Allen is refused.']