UDOWENKO v RASEVI PTY LTD [1996] NSWCA 539

UDOWENKO v RASEVI PTY LTD [1996] NSWCA 539

The application for an adjournment was refused because the material the appellant sought to introduce was not fresh evidence, could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and did not have such cogency as to make it probable that a different result would have been reached at trial. The appellant's conduct was found dilatory, and the interests of justice did not warrant the adjournment.

Parties
Appellant: Wolodymr Udowenko; Respondent: Rasevi Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Adjournment in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Civil Procedure Adjournment Fresh Evidence on Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wolodymr Udowenko

Appellant

Rasevi Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Adjournment in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for adjournment should be granted to allow the appellant to apply for leave to adduce fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an adjournment was refused because the material the appellant sought to introduce was not fresh evidence, could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and did not have such cogency as to make it probable that a different result would have been reached at trial. The appellant's conduct was found dilatory, and the interests of justice did not warrant the adjournment.

Court Disposition

application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • The application for adjournment is refused.