Robinson v Robinson

In *Robinson v Robinson*, the appellant sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge concerning the setting aside of subpoenas. The dispute involved the appellant's attempt to obtain evidence regarding the capacity to enter into a deed, with the Court of Appeal considering whether to allow the introduction of material that had not been presented to the primary judge.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it should undertake a trial of evidence that had not been considered by the primary judge, specifically in the context of an appeal concerning the setting aside of subpoenas. This raised questions about the scope of appellate review and the circumstances under which new evidence can be introduced.

The Court of Appeal determined that it was unlikely to undertake a trial of evidence that had not been previously considered by the primary judge. Applying this principle, the Court granted the appellant leave to file an amended notice of appeal and ordered that the subpoenas issued on behalf of the appellant, directed to Bailey Dunleavy of Penmans Solicitors and the Department of Human Services – Medicare, be set aside pursuant to rule 33.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Costs were to be costs in the cause for the appellant's notice of motion and costs in the proceedings in the Court for the first respondent's notice of motion.