Filetron Pty Ltd v Innovate Partners Pty Ltd ACN 131 941 145 atf Banton Family Trust 2 [2022] NSWLEC 98

Filetron Pty Ltd v Innovate Partners Pty Ltd ACN 131 941 145 atf Banton Family Trust 2 [2022] NSWLEC 98

The Applicant did not establish that the proposed town planning or traffic expert evidence was reasonably necessary to resolve the judicial review grounds. Ground 2 could be determined by reference to the material before the Council and did not justify expert evidence not before the decision-maker. Ground 4, as pleaded, raised matters that could be assessed from the documents or factual material before the Council, and the proposed evidence would impermissibly enter merits review or lacked sufficient specificity. Allowing the evidence would likely generate competing expert evidence of limited utility, increasing cost and potentially affecting the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Development Consent Da/0288/2021 / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave or Directions to Adduce Expert Evidence Under UCPR R 31.19
Outcome
The Applicant's notice of motion was dismissed, with costs to the First Respondent.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Development Consent' 'expert Evidence' 'mandatory Relevant Considerations' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'development Assessment' 'costs']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['judicial Review of Development Consent' 'expert Evidence' 'mandatory Relevant Considerations' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'development Assessment' 'costs']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Development Consent Da/0288/2021 / Notice of Motion Seeking Leave or Directions to Adduce Expert Evidence Under UCPR R 31.19

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be permitted to rely on the expert report of a town planner in judicial review proceedings.' 'Whether the Applicant should be permitted to rely on a proposed traffic expert report in judicial review proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed expert evidence was reasonably necessary to resolve grounds alleging failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to mandatory relevant matters and Wednesbury unreasonableness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not establish that the proposed town planning or traffic expert evidence was reasonably necessary to resolve the judicial review grounds. Ground 2 could be determined by reference to the material before the Council and did not justify expert evidence not before the decision-maker. Ground 4, as pleaded, raised matters that could be assessed from the documents or factual material before the Council, and the proposed evidence would impermissibly enter merits review or lacked sufficient specificity. Allowing the evidence would likely generate competing expert evidence of limited utility, increasing cost and potentially affecting the hearing.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's notice of motion was dismissed, with costs to the First Respondent.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's notice of motion dated 19 July 2022 is dismissed." "The Applicant is to pay First Respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 19 July 2022." 'The matter is listed before the Friday List Judge for directions on 12 August 2022.']