8 Mar 2023
The Court held Detective Webber's evidence was admissible rebuttal evidence that filled a gap in the job sheet and its probative value outweighed any prejudice; the trial Judge's prompt correction of the factual error in the summing up adequately remedied any risk of misapprehension and did not amount to judicial partiality or result in a miscarriage of justice, therefore the convictions stand.
30 Mar 2022
Recusal was declined because the asserted factual errors were trivial, appeared only in an appendix recording procedural history and did not create a logical nexus to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the present appeal; adjournment was declined because the grounds were late, vague, unsupported by evidence, lacked relevance to the legal issues on appeal, provided no adequate explanation for delay, and the prejudice to respondents and the public interest in timely resolution outweighed any asserted prejudice to appellants.
6 Aug 2020
The statement of Janine Bayley was excluded because it was produced late and she could not be cross‑examined, which made admission unfair to the defendants; however, Mr Bayley, as a named plaintiff and available for cross‑examination, may give quantum evidence even if it is new or supplementary.
6 Dec 2019
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave because the Court of Appeal correctly found the trial judge acted within his powers, the late disclosure did not cause identifiable prejudice or alter the case, the applicant failed to show grounds to vacate his guilty pleas, and the statutory leave criteria were not satisfied.
19 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because it was not seriously arguable that the duty to give reasons requires the Tribunal to articulate a specific 'analytical path' for credibility assessments; existing authorities establish a flexible, fact-sensitive approach and the Tribunal gave adequate reasons in this case, so the proposed question was not of general or public importance under s245.
26 Mar 2018
The Court accepted that issuing a subpoena in response to late disclosure was justified but found the subpoena was drafted in unnecessarily wide terms and that failure to respond to correspondence contributed to the need for the application; applying High Court Rules sch 2 as a guide the Court awarded costs to the witness in the sum of $1,110.00 representing specified schedule items.
23 Nov 2017
Award costs to plaintiff on a 2B scale ($45,826.50); refuse uplift because plaintiff did not provide evidence of additional costs from late disclosure, the counterclaim was not shown to be hopeless to justify uplift, and extra time preparing evidence is not a basis for uplift in ordinary commercial litigation; allow recovery of the plaintiff's half share of the official interpreter as a reasonably necessary disbursement under r14.12 but refuse recovery for a second private interpreter as personal convenience.
17 May 2017
The application for recall was dismissed because the Court had already considered the applicant's argument about late disclosure in its earlier judgment and no viable basis for recall was established.
24 Apr 2015
The Court excluded the evidence of Mr Jones because it was not relevant to the matters at issue and, alternatively, any limited relevance was outweighed by the prejudice to the defendants of admitting the evidence at such a late stage.
12 Dec 2013
The court recalled the costs decision because denial of an opportunity to be heard constituted a 'very special reason', reconsidered costs on the merits, gave limited weight to post‑judgment Calderbank correspondence because the case materially changed and offers were not determinative, found that late disclosure (the sample order) and the late decision not to call a witness increased G‑Star's costs, and accordingly affirmed the original order awarding one set of costs to G‑Star and G‑Star Australia on a 2B basis with a 25% uplift and reasonable disbursements and discharged the bank guarantee.