Capital Airport Group Pty Limited v Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning [2011] NSWLEC 22

Capital Airport Group Pty Limited v Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning [2011] NSWLEC 22

Although the applicant failed to seek directions promptly as required by UCPR 31.19, the Court exercised its discretion to make directions for expert evidence, finding that the prejudice to respondents was not sufficient to deny the application in the circumstances, and noting the common ground that the requirement to act 'promptly' is exhortatory rather than mandatory.

Parties
Applicant: Capital Airport Group Pty Limited; First Respondent: Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning; Second Respondent: Queanbeyan City Council; Third Respondent: Village Building Co Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Pre Trial Directions Hearing
Outcome
Directions made for management of expert evidence as per short minutes of order.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Court Directions, Timeliness of Applications, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Court Directions Timeliness of Applications Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital Airport Group Pty Limited

Applicant

Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning

First Respondent

Queanbeyan City Council

Second Respondent

Village Building Co Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Pre Trial Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should make directions relating to expert evidence where a party has not sought directions promptly under UCPR 31.19
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'promptly' in UCPR 31.19 and its implications for adducing expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant failed to seek directions promptly as required by UCPR 31.19, the Court exercised its discretion to make directions for expert evidence, finding that the prejudice to respondents was not sufficient to deny the application in the circumstances, and noting the common ground that the requirement to act 'promptly' is exhortatory rather than mandatory.

Court Disposition

Directions made for management of expert evidence as per short minutes of order.

Orders

  • Directions made in accordance with short minutes of order dated 18 February 2011.