Hurst-Myers v Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd

Hurst-Meyers, the appellant, sought leave to adduce further evidence on appeal against a decision of the Original Tribunal, while Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd, the respondent, lodged a cross-appeal 45 days after the appeal period had expired. The appellant applied for leave to appeal out of time, and the appeal tribunal was required to decide whether to grant leave to adduce further evidence and to grant leave to cross-appeal out of time. The tribunal considered the relevance of the evidence and whether it was available to the Original Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the application to adduce further evidence because the appellant had failed to establish that it was relevant and not already before the tribunal. The tribunal also dismissed the application to cross-appeal out of time because the delay was significant and there was no justification for it.

The tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the further evidence was relevant or that it was not already before the tribunal. The tribunal noted that the appellant had filed documents and a recording concerning the ACT Supreme Court matter, but had not sought to adduce this evidence before the tribunal. The tribunal also found that the appellant had failed to establish that the evidence was necessary to determine the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had not discharged the onus of showing that the further evidence was necessary and relevant. The tribunal further found that the cross-appeal was lodged 45 days after the appeal period had expired and there was no justification for the delay. The tribunal concluded that the delay was significant and there was no good reason for it.