Kaplan v State of Victoria (No 5)

In the case of Kaplan v State of Victoria (No 5), the respondents sought to call additional witness evidence, specifically from Leigh Sanders, to counter the applicants' case. The matter was heard in the Federal Court, and the primary focus of the court was whether the respondents' proposed evidence was relevant and responsive to the existing case. The applicants argued that the respondents had not promptly disclosed this new evidence and that allowing it at this stage would be unfair.

The legal issues before the court involved the procedural fairness in allowing late disclosure of additional evidence and whether the proposed evidence was relevant to the matters already before the court. The court needed to determine if the respondents' application to call Leigh Sanders as a witness should be permitted under the circumstances. Given that the respondents did not promptly notify the applicants of this additional evidence, and considering the significant amount of evidence already presented by the applicants, the court found it would be unfair to allow the respondents to introduce a material addition to their evidence case at this stage.

The court reasoned that the respondents' application to call Leigh Sanders as a witness should be refused. The court emphasised that how counsel decide to deal with opposing party evidence is a tactical decision, and the respondents had ample opportunity to address the applicants' evidence directly. Allowing the new evidence would disrupt the fairness of the proceedings and the strategic decisions made by the applicants based on the disclosed evidence. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court refused the respondents' application to call Leigh Sanders as a witness, noting that the late disclosure of this evidence would be unfair and disrupt the procedural fairness of the proceedings. The court's final order was that the application to call Leigh Sanders as a witness on behalf of the respondents was refused, and entry of orders was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.