Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2015] NSWLEC 33

With parties’ consent, the Court directs concurrent expert evidence and a pre-evidence conference to identify matters of agreement and disagreement in relation to the defence of necessity.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 March 2015
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome: procedural orders made by consent
Legal Topics: ['practice and Procedure' 'expert Evidence' 'demolition Without Consent']

['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['practice and Procedure' 'expert Evidence' 'demolition Without Consent']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether expert evidence for the prosecution and defendants may be given concurrently with parties' consent in a criminal trial." 'Whether experts should confer prior to evidence to identify agreement and disagreement regarding the necessity defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

With parties’ consent, the Court directs concurrent expert evidence and a pre-evidence conference to identify matters of agreement and disagreement in relation to the defence of necessity.

Court Disposition

procedural orders made by consent

Orders

['In relation to the defence of necessity, the prosecution expert and the expert for the defendants Geitonia Pty Ltd and Bill Gertos give evidence concurrently at the end of the prosecution case.' 'Prior to giving their evidence, the experts are to confer in order to identify and report to the Court on any matters...