A party's decision not to call evidence at an arbitration hearing is not improper and cannot be characterised as using the arbitration as a 'dry run' so as to justify refusing an adjournment at a rehearing where the scope of issues has been expanded. Where one party obtains an amendment changing the issues before the court, the other party is ordinarily entitled to an adjournment if unprepared to meet the changed issues, and case management considerations cannot override the paramount consideration of justice. The costs consequences identified in MacDougall v Curleveski are the appropriate remedy for tactical decisions at arbitration, not the denial of procedural fairness at rehearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.