15 Feb 2007
HANSEN V BIRD AND CHERRY HC WHA CIV 2004-488-519
- Citation
- openlaw-86635d2a_5ae8_4212_9d1c_34887db27860.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Leave to adduce further evidence was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial and was not sufficiently cogent or material to affect the outcome (council records were incomplete and existing planning and inspection documents undermined the negative evidence), and because the District Court had found the respondents' business had not begun so an illegality defence was unavailable; the time for filing the appeal was extended because the delay was satisfactorily explained, not excessive, caused no asserted prejudice and the appeal on quantum was…