4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 133

4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 133

Although there was a real risk if the water treatment project contract documentation and financing were not achieved by late October 2017, justice required giving the Applicant adequate time to prepare its evidence, submissions and expert material. The First and Second Respondents' failure to take prompt steps after remitter also weighed against the September hearing dates. The appropriate balance was to set the matter down for hearing on 16 and 17 October 2017, with the prospect of an expeditious result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Remitted Matter From the Court of Appeal; Procedural Ruling Setting a Hearing Date
Outcome
Matter set down for hearing on 16 and 17 October 2017 rather than the September 2017 dates sought by the First and Second Respondents.
Legal Topics
['remitter From Court of Appeal' 'setting Hearing Date' 'expedition' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings' 'interlocutory Evidence']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure' 'planning Law'] ['remitter From Court of Appeal' 'setting Hearing Date' 'expedition' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings' 'interlocutory Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Remitted Matter From the Court of Appeal; Procedural Ruling Setting a Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the remitted matter should be set down urgently in September 2017 as sought by the First and Second Respondents or on 16 and 17 October 2017 as proposed by the Applicant.' "How to balance the need for prompt determination of issues potentially affecting electricity supply and financing of a water treatment plant against the Applicant's need for adequate time to prepare." 'Whether contested hearsay evidence could be received for the interlocutory hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a real risk if the water treatment project contract documentation and financing were not achieved by late October 2017, justice required giving the Applicant adequate time to prepare its evidence, submissions and expert material. The First and Second Respondents' failure to take prompt steps after remitter also weighed against the September hearing dates. The appropriate balance was to set the matter down for hearing on 16 and 17 October 2017, with the prospect of an expeditious result.

Court Disposition

Matter set down for hearing on 16 and 17 October 2017 rather than the September 2017 dates sought by the First and Second Respondents.

Orders

  • ['The matter is set down for hearing on 16 and 17 October 2017.' 'The hearing is to commence at 9.00 am on 16 October 2017.' 'The parties are to confer about the terms of a timetable including the filing and serving of written submissions by all three parties and any submissions in reply.']