The Plaintiff appealed the Decision of a Chambers Judge and concurrently brought an Application under Rule 9.13 to allow the Court to hear more evidence. The Chambers Judge dismissed the post-hearing Application.

The Court of Appeal considered Rule 9.13 and found that it should be used sparingly. The Court noted that the Rule was not an opportunity for a party to advance an argument that it had not advanced before. It was also not intended to be used to fix evidentiary gaps, and the Court referred to the four-part test for admitting new evidence on Application.

The Court of Appeal found that the Chambers Judge was correct in dismissing the Application, that there was no misapprehension of the evidence, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias. The Appeal was dismissed.