Application to adduce further evidence after the close of pleadings — expert evidence — application for relief — wrongly-placed structure — Property Law Act 2007, s 323 — District Court Rules 2014, r 7.6 — Elders Pastoral v Marr (1987) 2 PRNZ 383 — Thornton Hall Manufacturing v Shanton Apparel Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 234 — Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 2781. The parties to the case were neighbours. The applicant sought relief for a wrongly-placed structure, because parts of her house encroached on the respondents' property. The respondents opposed the application, saying that they needed the disputed land to be able to build a garage. In the current application, the respondents applied to adduce further evidence after pleadings had closed. They submitted that the further evidence was required in order to resolve the real issues at play. To allow the extra evidence to be adduced, the Court had to first be satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice, that it would not significantly prejudice the applicant, and that it would not cause significant delay. The Court found that the respondents were aware of the issues at play and had had enough time to assemble their case. The matter was ready to be heard as it was, but the respondents had been talking to potential witnesses and not communicating with the Court about what they were doing. The respondents had not told the Court that they wanted to adduce new evidence until some four months after pleadings had closed. The Court found that the applicants should have cooperated with the trial process and the set timetabling, and it would not be in the interests of justice to allow the new evidence to be adduced. To allow the evidence would also cause significant prejudice to the applicant. The application was refused. Judgment Date: 25 August 2023