Seymour v Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

In the case of Seymour v Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd, the appellants engaged the respondent to drill a bore on their property. The respondents successfully sued the appellants in the District Court, and the appellants now appeal on various grounds, including the legality of the work done under the contract, the circumstances under which the work ceased, the terms of the contract, the performance of contractual obligations, and the alleged incompetence of their counsel during the initial trial. The appellants also applied for further evidence to be received under r 766(1)(c) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The court considered the appellants' application to adduce further evidence on the appeal, specifically evidence from an expert who was not called at trial and a driller who drilled a successful bore on the appellants' property after the trial. The court noted that the expert evidence was available during the trial but was not used due to contradictory evidence. The court concluded that the evidence should not be received as it was available for use at the trial and did not meet the criteria for special grounds. The court also found the argument that the respondent should have succeeded in drilling a bore near a successful bore to be logically and articulately flawed, given the uncertainty of tapping a particular artesian aquifer.

The court formally addressed the application for leave to rely upon the affidavit of the expert, Mr Whittington, stating that it was for the purpose of alleging a miscarriage of justice by reason of incompetence of counsel. The court held that the evidence was not relied upon as evidence of facts for a rehearing and thus did not meet the special grounds criteria. The court refused the application for further evidence and dismissed the appeal, ordering the costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on the grounds that the appellants' appeal grounds failed, and the application for further evidence did not meet the criteria for special grounds. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.