The term 'possession' in s 48(3)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas) extends to oral evidence that has been discovered and is known to the party, not merely physical possession of documents. Telephone advice about the existence and some details of a subpoena does not constitute the document coming to a person's notice for the purposes of r 146B of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas). The actions or inaction of lawyers acting for a party are attributed to that party when assessing whether proper diligence was exercised. Considerations relating to whether evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence cannot constitute a 'special circumstance' under s 48(3)(b), as they are expressly dealt with by s 48(3)(a).
The full text is available to signed-in members.