Michael Raymond Johnston v State of New South Wales

In the case of Michael Raymond Johnston v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff sought to adduce evidence that was served out of time. The plaintiff, Michael Raymond Johnston, filed what were described as "supplementary reports" from a doctor and a psychologist. These reports were intended to update the court on the plaintiff's condition. The State of New South Wales objected to the admission of these reports on the basis that they were filed outside the prescribed time limits. The dispute centred around whether the plaintiff required leave from the court to rely on these supplementary reports, and if the motion to admit them should be dealt with by the trial judge.

The legal issues before the court included whether the supplementary reports were an update to previous reports or new evidence that required leave under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). If the reports were merely updating previous evidence, then no leave would be required. Another issue was whether the motion to admit the reports should be dealt with by the trial judge, especially where no actual prejudice or injustice was suffered by the defendant upon whom the material was served. The court had to determine the appropriate process for handling the motion to admit the supplementary reports.

The court concluded that the supplementary reports were an update to previous reports and not new evidence. Therefore, no leave was required under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that if there was no actual prejudice or injustice to the defendant, the motion to admit the reports should be dealt with by the trial judge. The plaintiff had not demonstrated any prejudice or injustice resulting from the late filing of the supplementary reports. Thus, the court held that the motion to admit the supplementary reports should be heard by the trial judge.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the motion to admit the supplementary reports be heard by the trial judge. The court did not find it necessary to grant leave for the plaintiff to rely on the supplementary reports as they were deemed to be updates to the previous reports. The trial judge was tasked with determining whether the updated information would be admitted as evidence.