Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission

In the case of Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission, the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to decide whether the respondent should be permitted to lead more evidence after the Full Court had remitted the case for determination in accordance with the Full Court's judgment. The case involved a dispute over the valuation of land, with the Full Court previously finding that the trial judge had misdirected himself on the law by assuming there would be a single most comparable sale on which to determine value. The Full Court remitted the case back to the trial judge for redetermination in accordance with the Full Court's judgment. The respondent sought to lead more evidence, specifically from two valuers, Mr Dix and Mr Spencer.

The court considered whether the respondent should be permitted to reopen and lead fresh evidence. The applicant had already stated that it did not consider that further evidence should be led, and there was no prospect of Mr Dix leading further evidence without reopening the case. The court rejected the respondent's application to have Mr Spencer prepare a new report, as a report from Mr Spencer could only attempt to overcome the deficiencies with his evidence that led the court to conclude that it should not rely upon it. The court held that permitting Mr Spencer to give fresh evidence would only complicate the process and erode the finality of the trial process. The court concluded that the interests of justice would not be served by permitting the respondent to reopen and lead fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's application to lead more evidence and directed the parties to mediate before a Registrar and to bring in written submissions to allow the court to redetermine the matter in the light of the judgment of the Full Court. The court held that the respondent did not satisfy the tests for adducing fresh evidence, which involves proof that it is highly likely that there would be an opposite result produced and that no reasonable diligence on the part of the defeated party would have enabled that party to procure that evidence.