Dexus CPA Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2019] NSWLEC 186

Dexus CPA Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2019] NSWLEC 186

The application for a separate question was refused because the proposed question would not be dispositive of the proceedings, was likely to require evidence including possible contested expert evidence, risked appeal and delay, offered no real or significant saving of time, and created a risk of fragmented decision-making contrary to the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Compulsory Acquisition Compensation Proceedings / Respondent's Application for a Separate Question to Be Determined Before the Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Separate question refused
Legal Topics
['separate Question' 'compulsory Acquisition of Easements' 'just Terms Compensation' 'expert Evidence' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'land Acquisition and Compensation'] ['separate Question' 'compulsory Acquisition of Easements' 'just Terms Compensation' 'expert Evidence' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Compulsory Acquisition Compensation Proceedings / Respondent's Application for a Separate Question to Be Determined Before the Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed separate question concerning other land adjoining or severed from acquired land for the purposes of s 55(f) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) should be determined before the substantive issues.' 'Whether determination of the proposed separate question would facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a separate question was refused because the proposed question would not be dispositive of the proceedings, was likely to require evidence including possible contested expert evidence, risked appeal and delay, offered no real or significant saving of time, and created a risk of fragmented decision-making contrary to the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute.

Court Disposition

Separate question refused

Orders

  • ['The application for a separate question is dismissed.' 'Costs are reserved.']