Moore v Doyles Creek Mining Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 173

Moore v Doyles Creek Mining Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 173

Although there was some delay by the applicants, the hearing dates should be vacated because the case involved an important factual issue concerning risks of exploratory drilling to aquifers, expert evidence was important to the applicants' case, the timetable from the first return date to hearing was short, and the applicants' intended expert could not report or attend within that timeframe, provided the matter could be relisted within a reasonably short time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 8 Proceedings for the Review of an Arbitrator's Determination Under the Mining Act 1992 / Motion by the Applicants to Vacate the Hearing Dates on 10 and 11 October 2011
Outcome
Hearing dates vacated
Legal Topics
['vacation of Hearing Dates' 'expert Evidence' "review of Arbitrator's Determination" 'access to Property for Exploratory Drilling']
['practice and Procedure' 'mining Law'] ['vacation of Hearing Dates' 'expert Evidence' "review of Arbitrator's Determination" 'access to Property for Exploratory Drilling']

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 8 Proceedings for the Review of an Arbitrator's Determination Under the Mining Act 1992 / Motion by the Applicants to Vacate the Hearing Dates on 10 and 11 October 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing dates on 10 and 11 October 2011 should be vacated to allow the applicants to obtain expert evidence.' 'Whether delays by the applicants in retaining an expert and bringing the motion should preclude vacation of the hearing dates.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was some delay by the applicants, the hearing dates should be vacated because the case involved an important factual issue concerning risks of exploratory drilling to aquifers, expert evidence was important to the applicants' case, the timetable from the first return date to hearing was short, and the applicants' intended expert could not report or attend within that timeframe, provided the matter could be relisted within a reasonably short time.

Court Disposition

Hearing dates vacated

Orders

  • ['The applicants are to serve their experts report by 28 October 2011.' "The parties' experts are to confer and file and serve a joint report by 4 November 2011." 'The proceedings are fixed for hearing on 29 and 30 November 2011.' 'The costs of the motion and vacation of the hearing date are reserved.']