Rowley v Robinson

Rowley v Robinson is a case concerning a dispute over the ownership of a building located in Melbourne. The respondent, Robinson, sought an order for the appellant, Rowley, to vacate the premises. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which consisted of Beach, Redlich and Jagot JJA. The central legal issues before the court were whether special grounds existed to permit the appellant to adduce fresh evidence in the form of an affidavit, and if the fresh evidence was credible.

The Court of Appeal determined that the appellant had not established any special grounds for allowing the fresh evidence. The appellant's case relied heavily on the credibility of the fresh evidence, which the court found to be lacking. The court noted that the fresh evidence was not corroborated by any other evidence and that the appellant had not provided any compelling reason why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier. The court held that the fresh evidence did not provide a compelling reason to allow the appellant to depart from the general rule that no fresh evidence is admissible on an appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal refused the appellant leave to appeal. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any special circumstances that warranted the admission of fresh evidence, and the fresh evidence was not credible. The court noted that the appellant had not provided any compelling reason why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier, and the fresh evidence was not corroborated by any other evidence. As a result, the appellant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.