IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
COMMON LAW DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication	
Serious Injury List

Case No. CI-24-03269

RAAD AL-BANAA	Plaintiff	
		
v		
		
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	Defendant	

---

JUDGE:	His Honour Judge Pillay	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	3 and 4 June 2025	
DATE OF RULING:	4 June 2025 (ex-tempore)	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Al-Banaa v VWA (Ruling)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 760		

RULING
---

Subject:	SERIOUS INJURY APPLICATION	 
Catchwords: 	Plaintiff’s application to re-open case after evidence concluded – consideration of interests of justice – further affidavit provided 	
Ruling:	Application granted 

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Plaintiff	Ms M Pilipasidis SC with 
Mr B Cooper 	Maurice Blackburn 

For the Defendant	Mr B McKenzie 	TG Legal + Technology	

HIS HONOUR:

1	Having considered the plaintiff's application to re-open their case, I will grant the plaintiff's application. I do so for the following reasons: firstly, the re-opening is of a very confined nature. It is to put in evidence contained in one affidavit which has been sworn and exchanged with the Court and the defendant this morning. That affidavit is of short compass. It raises one particular issue which was ventilated yesterday.
2	As such, I am confident that a re-opening of the case will not lead to an unravelling of all the work that has been done in preparation, or was expended yesterday in the course of trial.
3	Secondly, I note that there is no significant prejudice here visited on the defendant which cannot, in due course, be cured by an order for costs. I note that, very fairly, the defendant put its position that having taken instructions this morning, it did not seek a further adjournment if the new evidence was to go in, that is, on the basis the plaintiff could re-open his case.
4	Similarly, while the defendant suffers from the problem that the employer is deregistered, it does not point to any specific prejudice arising from that issue either.
5	Overall then, I note that the plaintiff has but one application in terms of serious injury applications, in order to enliven his common law rights. That right might be very significantly prejudiced if he was not able to re-open his case and put this very limited information before the Court. In those circumstances, and balancing the interests of justice overall, I am prepared to exercise my discretion and permit the plaintiff to re-open his case on the limited basis in respect of the evidence contained in the further affidavit sworn this morning.