Randren House Pty Ltd v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 3) [2018] NSWLEC 106

Randren House Pty Ltd v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 3) [2018] NSWLEC 106

Although expert evidence is not ordinarily admitted in judicial review proceedings, an exception was justified because the Applicants' manifest unreasonableness challenge arose in a statutory water management framework requiring consideration of ecologically sustainable development and related environmental and water management principles. Mr Purcell's experience as a water engineer specialising in water management systems and irrigation meant his evidence could assist the Court in understanding what a reasonable decision-maker ought to have done and the environmental consequences of the decisions, and much of his opinion evidence was capable of satisfying s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings / Mid Trial Procedural Ruling on Whether the Applicants May Rely on Expert Evidence of Mr James Purcell
Outcome
Applicants granted leave to rely on the evidence of Mr Purcell pursuant to s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'manifest Unreasonableness' 'water Management Decisions' 'ecologically Sustainable Development']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'evidence Law' 'environmental Law' 'water Law'] ['judicial Review' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'manifest Unreasonableness' 'water Management Decisions' 'ecologically Sustainable Development']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings / Mid Trial Procedural Ruling on Whether the Applicants May Rely on Expert Evidence of Mr James Purcell

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicants should be permitted in Class 4 judicial review proceedings to rely on expert evidence from Mr James Purcell.' 'Whether the proposed expert evidence falls within an exception to the general rule that expert evidence is not admitted in judicial review proceedings.' "Whether Mr Purcell's opinions are within his specialised knowledge for the purposes of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although expert evidence is not ordinarily admitted in judicial review proceedings, an exception was justified because the Applicants' manifest unreasonableness challenge arose in a statutory water management framework requiring consideration of ecologically sustainable development and related environmental and water management principles. Mr Purcell's experience as a water engineer specialising in water management systems and irrigation meant his evidence could assist the Court in understanding what a reasonable decision-maker ought to have done and the environmental consequences of the decisions, and much of his opinion evidence was capable of satisfying s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Applicants granted leave to rely on the evidence of Mr Purcell pursuant to s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Orders

  • ["Mr Purcell's expert evidence may be admitted."]