Singh v Crafter &

This matter comes before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Singh, seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court. The dispute originated from a claim brought by the respondents for specific performance or, alternatively, damages for breach of a contract for the sale of shares in a publicly listed company. The trial judge had reserved judgment after a lengthy trial, and subsequently granted the respondents' application to reopen their case, albeit hesitantly.

The central legal issues before the High Court concerned the trial judge's decision to allow the respondents to reopen their case after the close of submissions, and the subsequent admission of evidence. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the trial judge erred in granting the application to reopen, particularly given the timing and the nature of the evidence sought to be introduced. The applicant contended that the respondents' application to reopen was made late in proceedings, after the close of their case and during the respondent's final address, and that the evidence sought to be admitted was not properly admissible.

The applicant argued that the trial judge's decision to permit the reopening of the case was erroneous. The respondents had closed their case, and the applicant had presented its defence. It was during the applicant's final submissions that the respondents sought to reopen their case to tender a document obtained from the Sydney Stock Exchange that morning. The applicant submitted that this application was made at a late stage and that the document was not properly admissible as proof of facts. The applicant also highlighted that the trial judge's finding of damages was based on evidence that was not admissible for that purpose.