Limited Re-opening Allowed for Costs Hearing in NSWSC
⚖️ Legal holding
A court may allow a limited re-opening of a hearing on costs if new evidence has the potential to affect the outcome.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The court allowed re-opening because the new evidence had the potential to change the outcome of the costs decision.
- The plaintiffs' counsel decided not to use an affidavit, partly because its form was objectionable, which was a factor in allowing re-opening.
- Any prejudice to the respondents from re-opening could be resolved by an order for the plaintiffs to pay costs.
- The re-opening was limited to allow the plaintiffs to file a specific affidavit and for other parties to respond.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court rejected the argument that the defendants had a duty of candour to present a neutral case or remedy deficiencies in the opponent's evidence.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to allow a limited re-opening of the hearing on costs because the new evidence had the potential to affect the outcome of the case.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 - s.600A and the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999, rule 2.13 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the potential impact of the new evidence on the outcome of the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that a court may allow a limited re-opening of a hearing on costs if new evidence has the potential to affect the outcome.