Al-Banaa v VWA (Ruling)
[2025] VCC 760
•4 June 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
SERIOUS INJURY LIST
Case No. CI-24-03269
| RAAD AL-BANAA | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Pillay | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 and 4 June 2025 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 4 June 2025 (ex-tempore) | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Al-Banaa v VWA (Ruling) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 760 | |
RULING
---
Subject:SERIOUS INJURY APPLICATION
Catchwords: Plaintiff’s application to re-open case after evidence concluded – consideration of interests of justice – further affidavit provided
Ruling: Application granted
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Ms M Pilipasidis SC with Mr B Cooper | Maurice Blackburn |
| For the Defendant | Mr B McKenzie | TG Legal + Technology |
HIS HONOUR:
1Having considered the plaintiff's application to re-open their case, I will grant the plaintiff's application. I do so for the following reasons: firstly, the re-opening is of a very confined nature. It is to put in evidence contained in one affidavit which has been sworn and exchanged with the Court and the defendant this morning. That affidavit is of short compass. It raises one particular issue which was ventilated yesterday.
2As such, I am confident that a re-opening of the case will not lead to an unravelling of all the work that has been done in preparation, or was expended yesterday in the course of trial.
3Secondly, I note that there is no significant prejudice here visited on the defendant which cannot, in due course, be cured by an order for costs. I note that, very fairly, the defendant put its position that having taken instructions this morning, it did not seek a further adjournment if the new evidence was to go in, that is, on the basis the plaintiff could re-open his case.
4Similarly, while the defendant suffers from the problem that the employer is deregistered, it does not point to any specific prejudice arising from that issue either.
5Overall then, I note that the plaintiff has but one application in terms of serious injury applications, in order to enliven his common law rights. That right might be very significantly prejudiced if he was not able to re-open his case and put this very limited information before the Court. In those circumstances, and balancing the interests of justice overall, I am prepared to exercise my discretion and permit the plaintiff to re-open his case on the limited basis in respect of the evidence contained in the further affidavit sworn this morning.
0
0
0