Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited (No 3); Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited (No 3); Ryan v Bhagria (No 3); Ryan v

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard appeals from a decision of the primary judge concerning multiple personal injury claims brought by the appellant, Mark Ryan, against various defendants including Bunnings Group Limited, Eastlake Football Club Limited, Tejinder Bhagria, Jade O’Halloran, and Stephen Cain. The claims arose from five separate incidents: an incident at a Bunnings store, three motor vehicle accidents, and an alleged false imprisonment and assault at Eastlake Football Club. The primary judge had ordered that the four proceedings be heard concurrently and sequentially, with evidence in one matter to be evidence in all.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge erred in her findings of fact and credit, particularly in relation to the appellant's claims of injury and loss arising from the various incidents. A significant aspect of the appeal was the appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence, which included medical records, expert reports, a transcript of a conversation, and photographs. The Court was required to determine whether this fresh evidence met the criteria for admission on appeal, considering whether it was reasonably available at the primary hearing, whether its absence was due to mistake or oversight, whether any irregularity prevented the appellant from effectively presenting his case, and whether the evidence would have likely altered the primary decision.

The Court dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence, finding that much of the material was either not relevant to the correctness of the judgment, assumed facts contrary to the primary judge's findings, or could have been adduced at the original hearing without adequate explanation for its absence. The Court applied the principles for admitting fresh evidence on appeal, which require consideration of whether the evidence was reasonably available, the reasons for its non-adduction, and its potential impact on the outcome. The Court found that the fresh evidence did not meet these criteria and would not have made a difference to the primary decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.