Frigger v Trenfield (No 7)

The parties in Frigger v Trenfield (No 7) were the applicants, who sought to reopen the trial after judgment had been reserved, and Mrs Trenfield, who opposed the reopening. The applicants sought to object to evidence already admitted and to adduce new evidence, claiming that they had mistakenly misapprehended facts and that the first respondent had abused her powers as trustee in bankruptcy. The legal issues before the court included whether the application to reopen the trial was in the interests of justice and whether the new evidence could have been adduced during the trial. The court held that the circumstances were not exceptional enough to warrant reopening the trial, and that it was not in the interests of justice to do so. The applicants' evidence could have been adduced during the trial, and reopening the trial would add to inefficiencies in the administration of justice. The application to reopen was dismissed, and the costs of the amended interlocutory application were ordered to be the first respondent's in any event.

The court's reasoning was that reopening the trial on the basis sought by the applicants would throw the proceeding into disarray and encourage other litigants to press objections after their opponents' cases have closed. The need for finality in litigation and the potential for arguments about the boundaries of the re-opened issues were considered. The court also noted that the new evidence, which was an email from a share registry, did not provide significant information about the issues in the proceeding. The applicants had not provided a good explanation for why the new evidence could not have been adduced during the trial.

The final orders included dismissing the applicants' amended interlocutory application, including the application to reopen the trial, and ordering that the costs of the amended interlocutory application would be the first respondent's in any event. The first respondent had liberty to apply within seven days of the date of the order in relation to the costs of the amended interlocutory application. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.