Szeto v Situ (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 138

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Szeto v Situ (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 138 Hearing dates: 16 May 2017 Date of orders: 16 May 2017 Decision date: 16 May 2017 Before: Bathurst CJ; Macfarlan JA; Leeming JA Decision: Notices of Motion dismissed Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Livy Szeto (Appellant) Liming Situ (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: I Tam / T Yeh (Appellant) R Cavanagh SC / P Cutler (Respondent)

Solicitors: Pope & Spinks (Appellant) Equiton Solicitors (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/183676 Publication restriction: Nil

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Judgment 1. THE COURT: The appellant has filed three Notices of Motion dated 20 March 2017, 1 May 2017 and 3 May 2017, respectively. Counsel for the appellant has not made any submissions as to why the orders sought in the Notices of Motion should be made. The Notices of Motion seek leave to issue subpoenas, presumably for the purpose of adducing further evidence on the appeal. There is nothing to say exactly what the evidence is, except what is contained in an affidavit in support sworn by Ms Szeto on 1 May 2017. 2. To the extent that affidavit identifies the evidence sought to be adduced, there is nothing to show that that evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, or would lead to the conclusion that there was a high probability that there would be a different verdict, or that it is credible. 3. In those circumstances, the Notices of Motion are dismissed.