Mullett v Nixon

The applicant, Mullett, sought an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against a decision that dismissed his claim for damages against the respondents, Nixon and others. The claim arose from allegations that the respondents maliciously prosecuted Mullett, and that the suspension of his employment with the Police Force was done maliciously. Mullett sought to adduce fresh evidence, including documents he claimed the respondents failed to discover and disclose, and sought to appeal on the basis that this evidence would give rise to a possibility of an opposite result.

The central issues before the court were whether the applicant could be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and whether he could be granted leave to adduce fresh evidence. The court was required to consider whether the new evidence sought to be introduced would give rise to a possibility of an opposite result, and whether there had been a breach of the discovery, disclosure, and production obligations.

The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal were not made out and that the evidence sought to be introduced did not give rise to a possibility of an opposite result. The court found that there had been no breach of the discovery, disclosure, and production obligations. The court applied Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade and dismissed the application for an extension of time and for leave to adduce fresh evidence. The court held that it was futile to grant an extension of time and that the application should be refused.

The court made no order as to costs.