The Court dismissed the defendants' third attempt to adjourn the trial to obtain metallurgical and occupational hygiene expert evidence regarding a metal box central to the plaintiff's loan claim. Chen J held that the defendants failed to demonstrate any disadvantage from the refusal, because the instructions provided to the proposed experts were patently incorrect and bore no relationship to the evidence, rendering it speculative whether any forensically useful opinion could be produced. The Court also held that the considerable delay (approximately six months) and significant costs to both parties, including a pensioner plaintiff, weighed decisively against the adjournment under ss 56-60 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and noted the impermissibility of making repeated interlocutory applications on the same ground after being warned of evidentiary deficiencies.
The full text is available to signed-in members.