18 Dec 2012
B AND T BLIND SPECIALISTS ROTORUA LIMITED V PEPPER HC ROT CIV-2011-463-580
- Citation
- openlaw-76df2a32_1cbd_4799_b3d6_09906cf82324.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The Court exercised its discretion to potentially admit into evidence common-bundle documents despite non-compliance with r9.14(4)-(5) by applying r9.14(6) where admitting them would not materially prejudice the plaintiff, but refused to permit the defendant to re-open his closed case to give further oral evidence on central pleaded matters because that would unjustifiably assist the unrepresented defendant and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff; assistance to lay litigants is limited and does not extend to fundamentally remaking a party's case after closure.
- Personal guarantee enforcement
- Misrepresentation and deceit
- High court rules r9.14 – common bundle evidence
- Assistance to unrepresented litigants
- Striking out pleadings
- Re-opening evidence