Mayne v M T T (No 1)

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard the case of Mayne v M T T (No 1), which involved a dispute regarding the plaintiff's ability to reopen their case to introduce additional evidence. The plaintiff, Mayne, sought to present evidence concerning the visibility of the plaintiff to the defendant's bus driver at the time of the collision. The defendant, M T T, opposed the application, arguing that granting it would result in prejudice as they had elected not to call evidence and had sent away a witness from Queensland. The court needed to determine whether it had the discretion to allow the plaintiff to introduce new evidence late in the proceedings.

The legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be permitted to adduce additional evidence regarding the visibility of the plaintiff to the defendant's bus driver prior to the collision. The court had to consider the exercise of its discretion in allowing such evidence and whether there were any specific criteria that must be satisfied before granting the application. The court also needed to weigh the potential prejudice to the defendant against the justice of the case.

The court found that it had the discretion to allow the plaintiff to introduce new evidence, as established in Williams v Davies. It rejected any suggestion that specific criteria must be satisfied before granting the application, stating that the justice of each case would dictate the appropriate manner in which the discretion should be exercised. The court found that the failure to adduce the evidence of the view of a driver in the position of the defendant's driver was entirely due to inadvertence and that the justice of the case still required the application to be granted. The court granted the application, allowing the plaintiff to adduce evidence regarding the view that was open to a driver approaching the point of impact along Currajong Street at the relevant time.

The court's final order was to grant the plaintiff's application to adduce evidence regarding the view that was open to a driver approaching the point of impact along Currajong Street at the relevant time. The defendant was given leave to adduce any evidence it wished to adduce or to make any submissions it wished to make. The court did not make a ruling at that stage on the submission of no case to answer, stating that if such a submission was made again, it would have to be considered in the light of all the evidence that the plaintiff adduced.