Evidence responsive to matters already covered in proceedings is to be given orally rather than through additional written outlines, to facilitate proper cross-examination and testing of evidence.

Where a party's solicitors have had advance notice of a lengthy adjournment for a specific purpose (here, obtaining a psychiatric report) but fail to initiate the necessary steps promptly, the Court is entitled to infer that the purpose could have been achieved within the time allowed and decline to reopen the case to admit belatedly-obtained evidence.

Three conditions need to be met before fresh evidence can be admitted on appeal: (a) it must be established that the evidence could not have been obtained or adduced with reasonable diligence for use at first instance; (b) it must be evidence which is of such a high degree of probative value that there is a probability that there would have been a different result at first instance; and (c) the evidence must be credible.

While it is permissible in an appropriate case to depart from the principles set out in Akins, it will be rare for fresh evidence to be admitted on appeal where the conditions in Akins are not met. A party is typically bound by the conduct of their case at first instance. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, a party should not be permitted to raise a new argument on appeal that was not put during the first instance hearing when there was an opportunity to do so.

An applicant who was in a managerial position and demonstrated ability to communicate in English and understand complex employment matters cannot successfully claim misunderstanding of procedural directions about the admission of evidence, particularly where explicit written directions were issued and explained during the hearing.

Three conditions must generally be met before fresh evidence can be admitted on appeal: (1) the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial; (2) there is a high degree of probability that there would be a different verdict; and (3) the evidence is credible.

Three conditions need to be met before fresh evidence can be admitted: (a) it must be established that the evidence could not have been obtained or adduced with reasonable diligence for use at first instance; (b) it must be evidence which is of such a high degree of probative value that there is a probability that there would have been a different result at first instance; and (c) the evidence must be credible.

The test for re-opening a case after the close of evidence to admit new evidence requires: (a) when the material interests of justice require it; (b) where the new evidence would probably produce a different result; and (c) where the evidence could not have been discovered before the trial.