Fast Buck$ and Terence Hamill v Dudley Pastoral Pty Limited and Byron Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 100

Fast Buck$ and Terence Hamill v Dudley Pastoral Pty Limited and Byron Shire Council [2002] NSWLEC 100

Most of Mr Alderson's report expressed competing expert views about what investigations should have been undertaken and therefore went to the merits of the council's decision, which could not be received in judicial review. However, paragraphs 4 and 10 were relevant because they addressed whether condition C6, which required compliance with ANZECC and EPA guidelines and approval processes, had been satisfied; those parts were admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Second Amended Class 4 Application Seeking a Declaration and Consequential Relief / Ex Tempore Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence in Judicial Review Proceedings
Outcome
Mr Alderson's report was admitted only as to paragraphs 4 and 10.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'development Consent Conditions' 'contaminated Land Reporting']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'planning and Development'] ['judicial Review' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'development Consent Conditions' 'contaminated Land Reporting']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Second Amended Class 4 Application Seeking a Declaration and Consequential Relief / Ex Tempore Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence in Judicial Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent condition C6 had been satisfied.' 'Whether the affidavit and report of Gregory Albert Alderson were relevant and admissible evidence.' "Whether the Court could consider the council's decision-making process without descending into the merits of the council's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

Most of Mr Alderson's report expressed competing expert views about what investigations should have been undertaken and therefore went to the merits of the council's decision, which could not be received in judicial review. However, paragraphs 4 and 10 were relevant because they addressed whether condition C6, which required compliance with ANZECC and EPA guidelines and approval processes, had been satisfied; those parts were admissible.

Court Disposition

Mr Alderson's report was admitted only as to paragraphs 4 and 10.

Orders

  • ['The report annexed to the affidavit of Gregory Albert Alderson sworn 27 September 2000 is admitted in evidence confined to paragraphs 4 and 10.']