Waste Recycling & Processing Corporation v Global Renewables Eastern Creek Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 444

Waste Recycling & Processing Corporation v Global Renewables Eastern Creek Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 444

Leave to reopen was refused because allowing the plaintiff to call further evidence from Mr Kanofski on reliance would prejudice the defendant by requiring further discovery and potentially the recall of witnesses, the plaintiff had accepted a condition that it would not depart from the particulars in its letter of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Reopen / Procedural Ruling During Final Hearing
Outcome
Application to reopen dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Reopen' 'case Management' 'prejudice' 'pleadings and Particulars' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Litigation'] ['leave to Reopen' 'case Management' 'prejudice' 'pleadings and Particulars' 'overriding Purpose']

Source-derived case record

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 / Procedural Ruling During Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to reopen its case to call Mr Kanofski on reliance on the pattern of deliveries in entering into council contracts.' 'Whether the prejudice to the defendant if leave were granted outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiff if leave were refused.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be held to its acceptance of the condition that it not depart from the particulars given in its letter of 18 May 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused because allowing the plaintiff to call further evidence from Mr Kanofski on reliance would prejudice the defendant by requiring further discovery and potentially the recall of witnesses, the plaintiff had accepted a condition that it would not depart from the particulars in its letter of 18 May 2009, and the need for the regular moving forward of the litigation and the overriding purpose outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application to reopen dismissed.']