Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd
[2001] QCA 33
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd[2001] QCA 33
- Add to List
Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd[2001] QCA 33
Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd[2001] QCA 33
COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
MULLINS J
| Appeal No 5723 of 2000 | |
| JUST GI PTY LTD | |
| (ACN 010 645 708) | Respondent (First Plaintiff) |
| and | |
| NOMOHEITH PTY LTD | |
| (ACN 060 188 367) | Respondent (Second Plaintiff) |
| and | |
| MARKEV PTY LTD | |
| (ACN 070 666 476) as trustee of the Evans Family Trust | Respondent (Third Plaintiff) |
| and | |
| PIG IMPROVEMENT COMPANY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | |
| (ACN 058 819 328) | Appellant (Defendant) |
BRISBANE
DATE 12/02/2001
JUDGMENT
DAVIES JA: Mr Keane for the appellant has sought leave to read and file an affidavit by Mr Andrew Peters, which we have had an opportunity of reading because it was put with the papers before us, which deposes to matters said to have occurred since the date of the hearing before Mr Justice Mackenzie, and said to show delay on the part of the respondent and therefore being relevant, it is submitted, to the question which arises before this Court.
We were told by Mr Barlow for the respondents that if leave were granted, which he opposes, he would seek leave to file and read two further affidavits, which raise contentious issues with respect to the affidavit which has been filed. This is, as Mr Keane acknowledges, an appeal against an exercise of discretion on a matter of practice and procedure.
Ordinarily, in my opinion, in circumstances involving an appeal of this kind, further material ought not to be brought, particularly when it raises contentious matters of fact, unless those matters of fact are of vital issue to the matters before the Court.
Having looked at the affidavit proposed to be read by Mr Peters, I do not think that the matters raised in there are sufficiently material to the matters sought to be raised in this appeal, which is essentially one of whether the learned Judge below has erred in the exercise of his discretion, and consequently I would refuse leave to read it.
WILLIAMS JA: I agree.
MULLINS J: I agree.
DAVIES JA: Order as I have indicated.