A court exercising its discretion to refuse an application to re-open a hearing before judgment is delivered must consider the materiality of the proposed evidence; refusing to read or have regard to the contents of the evidence sought to be tendered constitutes an error of law. However, such error will not result in the judgment being set aside unless the excluded evidence would have materially advanced the applicant's position. An appeal from the grant of unconditional leave to defend does not lie under s 60(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 24 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 24 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.