Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 6) [2021] NSWLEC 80

Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 6) [2021] NSWLEC 80

Given the elapsed time since the invalidation of the development consent and the need to resolve possible site reinstatement, the applicant should have leave to obtain a scoping study for reinstatement via expert evidence and site access under UCPR r 31.19 and r 23.8, with the costs of such experts to be borne by the Third Respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 4 / Ruling on Notice of Motion Regarding Leave to Rely on Expert Evidence and for Site Access, Pending Final Orders on Site Reinstatement
Outcome
Notice of motion granted in part. Leave given for expert evidence and site access for scoping study. Expert costs to be paid by Third Respondent. Orders to be finalised after input on details and timetable for further hearing on consequential orders.
Legal Topics
['remediation Orders' 'expert Evidence' 'site Access' 'consequential Orders']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['remediation Orders' 'expert Evidence' 'site Access' 'consequential Orders']

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 / Ruling on Notice of Motion Regarding Leave to Rely on Expert Evidence and for Site Access, Pending Final Orders on Site Reinstatement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant should have leave to rely on engineering and other evidence under UCPR r 31.19 for the preparation of a scoping study for site reinstatement' 'Whether order for access to site for experts should be made under UCPR r 23.8(1)' 'Whether Winten (No 12) Pty Ltd should bear the costs of the expert witnesses for site reinstatement investigation']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the elapsed time since the invalidation of the development consent and the need to resolve possible site reinstatement, the applicant should have leave to obtain a scoping study for reinstatement via expert evidence and site access under UCPR r 31.19 and r 23.8, with the costs of such experts to be borne by the Third Respondent.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion granted in part. Leave given for expert evidence and site access for scoping study. Expert costs to be paid by Third Respondent. Orders to be finalised after input on details and timetable for further hearing on consequential orders.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to applicant to rely on engineering and related evidence (scoping study) for site reinstatement under UCPR r 31.19.' 'Order for access to site by experts (engineer, ecologist, surveyor) under UCPR r 23.8.' 'Costs of expert witnesses for scoping study to be borne by Third Respondent.' 'Form of orders...