Peter John Dickson v Telstra Corporation Limited

The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal by Peter John Dickson against Telstra Corporation Limited. The dispute concerned an earlier decision by the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had found in favour of Telstra. The appeal sought to introduce fresh evidence that had not been presented at the original hearing.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the fresh evidence sought to be adduced was of sufficient cogency to warrant a different outcome at the original hearing, and whether the appellant had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to discover this evidence earlier. The court also considered the overarching duty to ensure justice is done, balancing the finality of litigation with the public interest.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the proposed fresh evidence, particularly concerning access to and reporting of the pit's condition by Telstra employees prior to the accident, was sufficiently cogent. It was considered that had this evidence been available and accepted at the original hearing, a verdict in favour of the plaintiff would likely have been inevitable, as it addressed the essential failure to prove Telstra's awareness of the unsafe condition. The court found that the appellant had demonstrated reasonable diligence in seeking discovery, especially given Telstra's position that no access had occurred and the lack of relevant records produced. The court noted that the evidence was primarily within Telstra's possession or should have been, making its non-disclosure exceptional.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and orders of the Master. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a rehearing, limited to the issue of liability. The respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited, was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.