27 Jul 2020
Although trial counsel was mistaken about s73 and should have taken steps (seek adjournment, contact co-defendant's counsel or obtain the co-defendant's willingness to testify) such error did not produce a real risk the verdict was unsafe because the proposed exculpatory account was implausible and contradicted reliable objective evidence; accordingly the appeal is dismissed though extension of time is granted.
18 Oct 2017
Where a party's default caused the adjournment, the defaulting party must pay wasted costs; accordingly the defendants were ordered to pay wasted costs of $8,028 assessed on a 2B basis because their failure to consider joining a third party earlier led to the adjournment.
25 Jun 2015
The Court concluded the plaintiffs' supplementary/reply evidence and proposed amendments introduced substantive new issues and increased quantum in ways that could reasonably have been anticipated and which require extensive, specialised testing and investigations that cannot be completed in the time remaining before trial. That prejudice to defendants and the resultant disruption to essential expert conferencing outweighed the plaintiffs' prejudice from delay. Accordingly the adjournment was granted, leave to amend and to file the supplementary briefs was given, and a timetable was directed…
27 Jun 2014
Plaintiffs were entitled to costs for the interlocutory applications to be assessed on a 2B scale with certain items disallowed (the 28 January memorandum and written submissions for directions); plaintiffs were entitled to wasted costs due to the defendants' late amendments and were awarded 75% of the 2B scale for preparation of briefs (as a matter of impression) and a fixed $5,000 to cover additional expert expenses; costs of the costs application itself were to lie where they fell.
8 May 2012
Leave to file the amended statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendment introduced a major, unparticularised new head of damages late in the litigation, depended on extensive third‑party evidence unlikely to be obtainable before trial, and granting it would almost inevitably require adjournment and cause prejudice to defendants despite the plaintiff having had two years to prepare.
24 May 2011
Leave to adduce the plaintiff's supplementary reply evidence on the creditors issue was granted under r 9.5(3) because, on balance, excluding evidence that represents over a third of the claimed loss would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and the prejudice to the defendants and third party could be addressed by adjourning the trial; the court weighed overall justice, noting deficiencies in the plaintiff's pleading but accepting informal notice and the late emergence of the issue justified permitting the evidence with an adjournment and costs reserved.