Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure & Ors (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 101

Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure & Ors (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 101

Table A to Mr Chen's affidavit is admissible as a summary. In Table B, the seventh column (compliance conclusions) and a page expressing compliance summary are rejected as submissions, not summary evidence. The balance of Table B is admitted, as the categorisation process was adequately explained and remains within permissible summary under s 50 Evidence Act.

Parties
Applicant: Botany Bay City Council; First Respondent: Minister for Planning and Infrastructure; Second Respondent: Stateland BKK Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Prosha Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Stateland East Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: BKK JV Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Part of Table B to the affidavit of Gilead Chi-Li Chen rejected. Balance admitted.
Legal Topics
Summary Evidence, Admissibility Under S 50 Evidence Act, Assessment of Affidavit
Evidence Summary Evidence Admissibility Under S 50 Evidence Act Assessment of Affidavit

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Botany Bay City Council

Applicant

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure

First Respondent

Stateland BKK Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Prosha Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Stateland East Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

BKK JV Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of evidence by way of summary under s 50 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Chen's tables constitute a summary or involve subjective judgment beyond a summary

Ratio Decidendi

Table A to Mr Chen's affidavit is admissible as a summary. In Table B, the seventh column (compliance conclusions) and a page expressing compliance summary are rejected as submissions, not summary evidence. The balance of Table B is admitted, as the categorisation process was adequately explained and remains within permissible summary under s 50 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Part of Table B to the affidavit of Gilead Chi-Li Chen rejected. Balance admitted.

Orders

  • Table A to Mr Chen's affidavit admitted.
  • Seventh column and page expressing summary compliance in Table B rejected as submissions.