Williams v NSW Minister for Planning [2010] NSWLEC 202

Williams v NSW Minister for Planning [2010] NSWLEC 202

The tender was rejected because the document had not been filed or served, the respondents first saw it on the morning of the hearing, the issue for which it was tendered was not raised in the current Points of Claim or agreed statement of issues, an earlier pleading did not preserve or raise that issue, and admission would cause real prejudice to the respondents by introducing a contested factual issue at the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging the Validity of Modifications to a Development Consent for the Cowal Gold Mine / Ruling on Objection to Evidence on the First Day of Hearing
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
['tender of Document' 'relevance to Pleaded Issues' 'prejudice From New Issue' 'development Consent Modifications' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage']
['evidence' 'practice and Procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['tender of Document' 'relevance to Pleaded Issues' 'prejudice From New Issue' 'development Consent Modifications' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage']

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

Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging the Validity of Modifications to a Development Consent for the Cowal Gold Mine / Ruling on Objection to Evidence on the First Day of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to tender the document entitled "Cowal Gold Project Indigenous Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Plan" of October 2003.' 'Whether the document was relevant to any pleaded issue or issue in the agreed statement of issues for trial.' 'Whether the respondents would be prejudiced if the document were admitted in support of a new issue raised only at the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender was rejected because the document had not been filed or served, the respondents first saw it on the morning of the hearing, the issue for which it was tendered was not raised in the current Points of Claim or agreed statement of issues, an earlier pleading did not preserve or raise that issue, and admission would cause real prejudice to the respondents by introducing a contested factual issue at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • ['The tender of the document entitled "Cowal Gold Project Indigenous Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Plan" of October 2003 is rejected.']