In Thomson v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [No 2] [2024] QCA 83, the appellant, Carolyn Mary Thomson, sought leave to reopen her appeals in order to introduce new evidence before the judgment was delivered. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Mullins P, Morrison, and Bond JJA, refused the application. They found that the new evidence sought to be introduced was irrelevant to the issues before the primary judge and the Court of Appeal. The primary judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and determined that there was a genuine dispute as to the debts subject to the statutory demand. Any new material presented did not alter this conclusion. Additionally, the appellant's points regarding a jurisdictional challenge in related proceedings were considered irrelevant to the Court's current deliberations. Therefore, the application to reopen the appeals was dismissed.
top of page
bottom of page