CSR Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1244

CSR Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1244

The respondent's motion to vacate the hearing dates was refused because the mining lease was a matter of public record and, in any event, sufficient time remained after service of Mr Hubbard's statement for the respondent's representatives and advisers to make necessary enquiries. The applicant's motion was allowed because Mr Watt's statement sought to reject an inter partes s 34 conciliation agreement without the respondent first taking a proper procedural step to resile from it, giving notice, or allowing the applicant an opportunity to resist; admitting it would undermine the s 34 conciliation process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Valuation Appeal / Procedural Rulings on Two Notices of Motion After Consent Orders Resolved the Substantive Valuation Dispute
Outcome
Respondent's motion to vacate the hearing dates declined; applicant's motion to reject Mr Watt's statement of evidence granted.
Legal Topics
['late Service of Evidence' 'application to Vacate Hearing Dates' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement' 'exclusion of Expert Evidence Contrary to Inter Partes Agreement']
['evidence' 'land Valuation' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['late Service of Evidence' 'application to Vacate Hearing Dates' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement' 'exclusion of Expert Evidence Contrary to Inter Partes Agreement']

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 3 Valuation Appeal / Procedural Rulings on Two Notices of Motion After Consent Orders Resolved the Substantive Valuation Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing dates should be vacated because the applicant's late-served valuer's statement disclosed the existence of a mining lease over the land." "Whether the respondent should be permitted to rely on Mr Watt's statement of evidence where it advanced a valuation basis contrary to an agreement reached between the parties at a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's motion to vacate the hearing dates was refused because the mining lease was a matter of public record and, in any event, sufficient time remained after service of Mr Hubbard's statement for the respondent's representatives and advisers to make necessary enquiries. The applicant's motion was allowed because Mr Watt's statement sought to reject an inter partes s 34 conciliation agreement without the respondent first taking a proper procedural step to resile from it, giving notice, or allowing the applicant an opportunity to resist; admitting it would undermine the s 34 conciliation process.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion to vacate the hearing dates declined; applicant's motion to reject Mr Watt's statement of evidence granted.

Orders

  • ['The hearing dates were not vacated.' "The respondent was not permitted to rely on Mr Watt's statement of evidence dated 4 November." 'Mr Watt was permitted to prepare a further statement of evidence, including on an alternative hypothetical partial site rehabilitation model of valuation outcome.']