Michael Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 167

Michael Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 167

Leave to re-open is refused because the nature and extent of new evidence is unknown, argument has concluded, the interlocutory motion was heard on urgent notice, further delay is unwarranted, and the applicant is not precluded from seeking further relief in future if additional evidence is obtained.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Ryan; First Respondent: Northern Regional Planning Panel; Second Respondent: Lismore City Council; Third Respondent: Winten (No 12) Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: W A Sexton; Fifth Respondent: Glorbill Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/administrative Law – Class 4 / Interlocutory Application (motion to Reopen and Adjourn Interlocutory Relief)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Notice of Motion to Re Open, Interlocutory Relief, Adjournment, Fresh Evidence
Practice and Procedure Notice of Motion to Re Open Interlocutory Relief Adjournment Fresh Evidence

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ryan

Applicant

Northern Regional Planning Panel

First Respondent

Lismore City Council

Second Respondent

Winten (No 12) Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

W A Sexton

Fourth Respondent

Glorbill Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/administrative Law – Class 4 / Interlocutory Application (motion to Reopen and Adjourn Interlocutory Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to re-open the case after evidence and argument heard on interlocutory motion
  2. 2 Whether adjournment and further site inspection should be allowed for preparation of further expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to re-open is refused because the nature and extent of new evidence is unknown, argument has concluded, the interlocutory motion was heard on urgent notice, further delay is unwarranted, and the applicant is not precluded from seeking further relief in future if additional evidence is obtained.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion filed 1 November 2019 seeking to re-open the case and associated orders is dismissed.
  • Costs reserved.