2 Oct 2020
The application to amend the grounds of appeal was declined because the questions of law identified by Woolford J provided the appropriate basis for the appeal and the additional matters either were not amenable to appeal or were adequately reflected in the granted grounds.
26 Aug 2016
The application to amend the grounds of appeal was dismissed and the leave to appeal revoked because the proposed new argument could not properly be advanced at this late stage and would require reopening issues finally disposed of by prior authority; indemnity costs were not warranted and a standard award of $6,000 plus reasonable disbursements was appropriate.
12 Feb 2013
Leave granted to adduce Mr Minchin's affidavit and to amend the grounds of appeal to raise ss 8 and 48(4) issues because justice required consideration of potential unfairness and real risk of imprisonment; Mr Lyttelton's affidavit excluded as it raised counsel complaint matters not pleaded below and properly for the Law Society; orders made for waiver of privilege, agreed statement of facts and timetable for responsive filings.
14 Sept 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal had not arguably erred in exercising its discretion: the proposed amendments did not raise new issues beyond core matters already before the Court and the proffered fresh evidence lacked the cogency required for admission on appeal; consequently there was no necessity in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear the proposed appeal.
20 Jun 2007
Applications for leave were refused because electronic discovery had been thoroughly addressed at trial and by affidavit, the proposed additional materials were speculative or lacked probative value or were late, and proposed amendments would expand the appeal without justification; respondent awarded costs.
15 Feb 2007
Applications to amend the ground of appeal and to adduce the 1997 document as fresh evidence are dismissed because allowing them would place the appellate court outside appropriate bounds, Paper Reclaim failed the due diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence, the document's authenticity and effect could not be resolved without a full rehearing, and permitting the change would unfairly prejudice the respondent and undermine finality of litigation.