Zebdarth Pty Ltd t/a Alan Willi Family Trust v Schonfeld Consulting

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Zebdarth Pty Ltd, trading as the Alan Willi Family Trust, and Schonfeld Consulting. The plaintiff sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of a letter from McFillin & Partners, dated 1 March 2016, and its attachments. The application to admit this new evidence was contested by the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could introduce new evidence during the interlocutory stage of the proceedings.

The legal issue before the court was whether the criteria for admitting new evidence in interlocutory applications were satisfied. The court considered the well-established principles governing the admission of new evidence in interlocutory applications. The court noted that while there is a strong presumption against admitting new evidence at this stage, exceptions can be made if the evidence is crucial to the case and could not have been obtained earlier through reasonable diligence. The court also considered whether the new evidence might affect the outcome of the matter and whether there were any grounds for prejudicing the defendant.

The court found that the new evidence was highly relevant and potentially crucial to the case. The plaintiff demonstrated that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier despite reasonable efforts. The court acknowledged the potential for prejudice but concluded that the benefits of admitting the new evidence outweighed the risks. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff to introduce the letter from McFillin & Partners and its attachments as evidence in the proceedings. The decision was based on the importance of the evidence and the plaintiff's inability to obtain it earlier.

The court's final order was that the letter from McFillin & Partners, dated 1 March 2016, along with all its attachments, be admitted as evidence in the proceedings under the case number APL526-15. This decision enabled the plaintiff to present a more comprehensive case, potentially influencing the ultimate outcome of the litigation.