Knight 34 Langdon Road v Bell

Knight 34 Langdon Road, the appellant, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed its application to adduce further evidence under rule 64.13 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The dispute related to a contract of sale for an apartment. The respondent, Bell, applied for summary enforcement of a settlement agreement, which was granted, leading to orders for specific performance of the contract of sale. Knight subsequently applied for leave to adduce further evidence, alleging that Bell was not ready, willing, and able to perform the contract of sale at the time of the enforcement hearing. Knight claimed that the evidence could not have been discovered in time for the trial and that there was a high probability of a different result if the evidence had been received.

The court considered whether the evidence was reasonably credible and whether there was a high probability of a different result if the evidence had been received at the trial. It held that the evidence was not reasonably credible as it did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial. The court also held that there was no high probability of a different result if the evidence had been received at the trial. The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court referred to Bishop v Taylor and Foody v Horewood in reaching its decision.

The court held that the application for leave to adduce further evidence was an exceptional remedy and could only be granted if the evidence was reasonably credible and there was a high probability of a different result if the evidence had been received at the trial. The court held that Knight had failed to establish either criterion, and therefore, the application was dismissed. The court also held that the application for leave to appeal was an interlocutory application and would only be granted if there were special circumstances. The court held that there were no special circumstances in this case, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.