The ACT Court of Appeal held that fresh evidence from two Telstra employees — who had accessed a pit before the plaintiff's fall and observed its dangerous condition — was sufficiently cogent to warrant a new trial on liability, as it would likely have changed the result. The Court held that the reasonable diligence requirement for admitting fresh evidence on appeal does not demand perfection, and where the critical evidence was primarily in the possession of the respondent and was not produced on discovery due to the respondent's own failure to record a complaint, the interests of justice required the evidence to be admitted. [name withheld] additionally noted that Telstra had conducted the trial on the footing that it was unaware of the pit's condition, a position now unsustainable on the unchallenged fresh evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.