Wilson v Bourke Shire Council & Anor [2000] NSWLEC 271

Wilson v Bourke Shire Council & Anor [2000] NSWLEC 271

The applicant was allowed to rely on the further amended statement of issues because the Court considered it was bound by State of Queensland and Anor v JR Holdings Pty Limited to permit the amendments. However, the new issues went beyond those previously identified and required expert evidence from different disciplines, and the first and third respondents could not reasonably obtain evidence in answer before the listed hearing. The adjournment was caused by the applicant, so the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment, including the costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings Objecting to the First Respondent's Grant of Development Consent for an Above Ground Water Storage and Irrigated Development / Notices of Motion by the Applicant to Add Additional Issues and by the Third Respondent to Vacate the Hearing Date
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs thrown away; no order made on the third respondent's notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'statement of Issues' 'amendment' 'adjournment' 'costs Thrown Away' 'expert Evidence']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Consent' 'statement of Issues' 'amendment' 'adjournment' 'costs Thrown Away' 'expert 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 1 Proceedings Objecting to the First Respondent's Grant of Development Consent for an Above Ground Water Storage and Irrigated Development / Notices of Motion by the Applicant to Add Additional Issues and by the Third Respondent to Vacate the Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to rely upon a further amended statement of issues raising additional matters shortly before the hearing date' 'Whether the hearing date should be vacated or the hearing adjourned because respondents could not obtain expert evidence to answer the proposed amendments in time' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the applicant as a consequence of the adjournment']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was allowed to rely on the further amended statement of issues because the Court considered it was bound by State of Queensland and Anor v JR Holdings Pty Limited to permit the amendments. However, the new issues went beyond those previously identified and required expert evidence from different disciplines, and the first and third respondents could not reasonably obtain evidence in answer before the listed hearing. The adjournment was caused by the applicant, so the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment, including the costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs thrown away; no order made on the third respondent's notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the applicant to rely upon the amended statement of issues.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the first, second and third respondent thrown away by reason of the adjournment, including the costs of this motion.' 'No order is made in relation to the notice of motion which is filed by the...