Z v University of A, Dr D and B (No 6) [2003] NSWADT 260

Z v University of A, Dr D and B (No 6) [2003] NSWADT 260

The proposed evidence was not fresh and did not materially advance the applicant's case. Given the lengthy prior consideration of the issues and the potential for increased cost and delay, the interests of justice did not require the re-opening of the case to admit further evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Z; First Respondent: University of A; Second Respondent: Dr D; Third Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Open Case / Preliminary Matter
Outcome
Application to re-open case dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Opening of Case, Tribunal Procedure, Admission of Further Evidence, Discretionary Powers, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Anti Discrimination Law Re Opening of Case Tribunal Procedure Admission of Further Evidence Discretionary Powers Natural Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z

Applicant

University of A

First Respondent

Dr D

Second Respondent

B

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Re Open Case / Preliminary Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to re-open the applicant's case to admit further evidence after the hearing has concluded but before decision is delivered.

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence was not fresh and did not materially advance the applicant's case. Given the lengthy prior consideration of the issues and the potential for increased cost and delay, the interests of justice did not require the re-opening of the case to admit further evidence.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open case dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed