Heatscape Pty Ltd v Mahoney

Heatscape Pty Ltd sought to adduce fresh evidence in their action against Mahoney. The dispute pertained to the construction of a roof system installed by Heatscape, which was claimed to have been defective. The Federal Court was asked to consider this application under section 28 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. The key issues for the court were whether the proposed evidence was relevant and material to the proceedings and whether it was reasonably practicable to give the evidence at the original trial. The court examined the circumstances of the case, the nature of the proposed evidence, and the reasons for the delay in seeking to adduce it. The court concluded that the proposed evidence was not relevant or material to the proceedings, and that it was not reasonably practicable to give it at the original trial. The application to adduce fresh evidence and to call evidence from a person was refused. The court found that the proposed evidence was not relevant or material to the proceedings, and that the delay in seeking to adduce it was unreasonable. The court also found that the proposed evidence was not reasonably practicable to give at the original trial, as it would have required the witness to travel from overseas and would have caused significant delay and expense.