David DeBattista v Minister for Planning [2018] NSWLEC 8

David DeBattista v Minister for Planning [2018] NSWLEC 8

Because the applicant's pleaded case was directed to Council's alleged failure to implement the prescribed statutory process under s 117(3), rather than directly impugning the Secretary's delegate's decision, the proposed expert evidence and interrogatories had a relevant association with matters in issue and could assist in resolving or narrowing the proceedings. Leave to rely on expert evidence and orders for answers to interrogatories were therefore granted, with admissibility reserved for the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Procedural Notice of Motion in Substantive Proceedings Concerning Declaratory and Consequential Relief / Motion for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence Under R 31.19(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) and for Interrogatories Under R 22.1(1)
Outcome
Motion allowed.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'interrogatories' 'civil Enforcement Proceedings' 'judicial Review' 'local Planning Directions' 'planning Proposals']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'interrogatories' 'civil Enforcement Proceedings' 'judicial Review' 'local Planning Directions' 'planning Proposals']

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 Proceedings; Procedural Notice of Motion in Substantive Proceedings Concerning Declaratory and Consequential Relief / Motion for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence Under R 31.19(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) and for Interrogatories Under R 22.1(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce expert evidence from a town planner and a land economist.' 'Whether the first and second respondents should be required to answer specified interrogatories.' "Whether the proposed expert evidence and interrogatories were relevant to the pleaded case concerning Council's alleged failure to comply with s 117(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), rather than an impermissible challenge to the Secretary's delegate's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's pleaded case was directed to Council's alleged failure to implement the prescribed statutory process under s 117(3), rather than directly impugning the Secretary's delegate's decision, the proposed expert evidence and interrogatories had a relevant association with matters in issue and could assist in resolving or narrowing the proceedings. Leave to rely on expert evidence and orders for answers to interrogatories were therefore granted, with admissibility reserved for the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed.

Orders

  • ['The Court gives a direction under r 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the applicant is to file and serve any expert report upon which it will seek to rely in the disciplines of town planning and/or land economics on or before 20 February 2018.' 'The first and second respondents be required...