Chinchilla 4x4 Centre v Dingley

The appeal involves the respondents, Chinchilla 4x4 Centre, contesting the decision of the Tribunal to admit a statutory declaration by Peter Enrich as evidence. The appellants, Mr and Mrs Dingley, sought to adduce the declaration as evidence in two separate minor civil disputes. The Tribunal allowed the evidence and found in favour of the appellants.

The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to permit the submission of new evidence that had not been disclosed during the discovery process. The appellants argued that the new evidence was relevant and should be considered, while the respondents contended that the evidence should not be admitted due to the procedural rules governing the disclosure of evidence.

The Tribunal examined the statutory provisions governing the admissibility of new evidence in minor civil disputes. It held that while the general rule is that all evidence should be disclosed during the discovery process, there are circumstances in which new evidence may be admitted if it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The Tribunal concluded that the statutory declaration was relevant and should be admitted. It found that the respondents had not demonstrated any undue prejudice arising from the late disclosure of the evidence. The Tribunal therefore allowed the statutory declaration to be admitted as evidence and found in favour of the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered that Peter Enrich’s statutory declaration dated 20 October 2015 be admitted as evidence in the matters APL347-15 and APL065-16.