Clark v Robards (No 2)

In *Clark v Robards (No 2)*, the appellant sought to reopen an appeal on the basis of a misapprehension of fact that they contended was material to the Court's previous reasoning. The respondent opposed this application. The matter came before Basten and Simpson JJA and Emmett AJA.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the appellant's application to reopen the appeal. This required the Court to consider whether a misapprehension of fact had indeed occurred, and if so, whether that factual error was material to the Court's prior reasoning in the original appeal. A further consideration was whether any additional misapprehensions of fact had been made in the current application.

The Court considered the principles governing the reopening of appeals, particularly in circumstances where a party alleges a misapprehension of fact. The Court's reasoning focused on whether the alleged misapprehension was of such a nature and significance that it vitiated the original decision. After considering the submissions and the evidence, the Court concluded that the threshold for reopening the appeal had not been met.

Consequently, the notice of motion filed on 22 August 2016 was dismissed.