Cristovao v Tan and Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)

The appeal in Cristovao v Tan and Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute between the appellant, Mr Cristovao, and the respondents, Tan and Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd. The case was heard before the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the court should receive further evidence from Ms Fenwick and a copy of the indemnity insurance contract between the respondents and Law Mutual. The appellant sought to adduce evidence that was not presented before the primary judge, which was in contravention of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's application to adduce further evidence should be granted. The court considered whether there was a proper basis for the appellant to receive further evidence, given the lack of an affidavit filed by the appellant in accordance with rule 36.57 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Additionally, the court took into account the appellant's absence from the hearing and the lack of a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

The court found that the appellant had not filed an affidavit in support of his application to adduce further evidence, as required by rule 36.57 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Furthermore, the court was not convinced that there was a proper basis for the appellant to receive further evidence, given the lack of an affidavit and the appellant's absence from the hearing without a reasonable explanation. The court also noted that if the appellant had encountered an accident on his way to the court, the matter could be restored for reconsideration. However, in the absence of such an affidavit, the court dismissed the appellant's interlocutory application.

The court made orders that unless the appellant applied to the court no later than 4:00 pm on Monday, 18 December 2017, the appellant's interlocutory application dated 29 November 2017 be dismissed without further order of the court. Any such application must be supported by an affidavit establishing why the appellant did not appear at the hearing of the interlocutory application on 14 December 2017.