DEXUS Funds Management Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2011] NSWLEC 156

DEXUS Funds Management Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2011] NSWLEC 156

Expert evidence was not 'reasonably required to resolve the proceedings' within the meaning of UCPR 31.19 because the legal questions involved assessment of Council's actual consideration of contamination and traffic matters on material before it, not on the merits; specificity of proposed expert evidence was lacking and its admission risked sliding into merit review.

Parties
Applicant: DEXUS Funds Management Ltd; First Respondent: Blacktown City Council; Second Respondent: Plumpton Park Developments Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review – Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Direction to Rely on Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application for direction to rely on expert evidence refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Judicial Review, Development Consent, Failure to Consider Relevant Matters
Administrative Law Planning and Environment Law Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Judicial Review Development Consent Failure to Consider Relevant Matters

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEXUS Funds Management Ltd

Applicant

Blacktown City Council

First Respondent

Plumpton Park Developments Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review – Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Direction to Rely on Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence should be permitted in judicial review of council decision granting development consent
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence is 'reasonably required to resolve the proceedings' under UCPR 31.19

Ratio Decidendi

Expert evidence was not 'reasonably required to resolve the proceedings' within the meaning of UCPR 31.19 because the legal questions involved assessment of Council's actual consideration of contamination and traffic matters on material before it, not on the merits; specificity of proposed expert evidence was lacking and its admission risked sliding into merit review.

Court Disposition

Application for direction to rely on expert evidence refused

Orders

  • The applicant's application for a direction to rely on expert evidence is refused.
  • Exhibits may be returned.