Dogra v Dogra (No 4)

The appeal concerned a claim to a beneficial interest in land registered under the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW). The primary judge had made extensive findings regarding the credit of the parties, finding that the documentary evidence was inconsistent with the appellant's alleged entitlement. The court considered whether the primary judge was entitled to draw a *Jones v Dunkel* inference, noting the financial interdependence of the parties.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination on a collateral issue that was argued to substantially affect the credit of a witness. The court also considered an informal application to admit further evidence on appeal, which was refused on the basis that the evidence was not available at the original hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge was entitled to make the credit findings and draw the *Jones v Dunkel* inference given the inconsistencies in the evidence. The court also upheld the refusal to permit cross-examination on the collateral issue, concluding it would not have substantially affected the witness's credit. The application to admit further evidence was refused as it did not meet the criteria for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. The cross-appeal was also dismissed.