He v Qin & Ors

In the case of He v Qin & Ors, the appellant sought to introduce new evidence at the appellate stage. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether leave should be granted to admit this further evidence. The respondents argued that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the new evidence was exceptional and necessary to serve the demands of justice. The tribunal was required to assess whether the criteria for admitting new evidence on appeal were met, particularly in light of the principles established in previous cases such as Hurst-Myers v Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd and Fox v Percy. The tribunal's decision hinged on whether the new evidence was exceptional and whether its admission would have altered the outcome of the original decision.

The tribunal examined the principles governing the admission of further evidence on appeal, drawing on the High Court's decision in CDJ v VAJ (No 1). It noted that further evidence should not ordinarily be admitted if it was available or could reasonably have been obtained at the time of the hearing. The tribunal also considered the importance of finality, the discoverability of the evidence, and its likely effect on the orders made. In this case, the tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the new evidence was exceptional or that it would have produced a different result if it had been available at the trial. The tribunal emphasised that justice would not be served unless it was satisfied that the further evidence would have led to a different outcome. Given these considerations, the tribunal concluded that the new evidence did not meet the criteria for admission.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the specified amounts to the respondents. This decision underscored the tribunal's adherence to the well-established principles regarding the admission of further evidence on appeal. The tribunal found that the appellant had not shown that the new evidence was exceptional or that its admission was necessary to serve the demands of justice. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the original decision, and the appeal was dismissed with the appellant ordered to pay the specified sums to the respondents.