Diamond v Minister for Planning New South Wales and Another [2004] NSWLEC 84

Diamond v Minister for Planning New South Wales and Another [2004] NSWLEC 84

The affidavit evidence was rejected because the matters raised were not sufficiently relevant to the Court's de novo determination of the development consent appeal and, even if potentially relevant, the allegations were grave but vague, not in proper form, not raised in the Statements of Issues, served late, and concerned matters long within Mr Diamond's knowledge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning Development Consent / Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence During Hearing
Outcome
Affidavit evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'allegations of Fraud or Corruption' 'third Party Objector Appeal' 'development Consent']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'allegations of Fraud or Corruption' 'third Party Objector Appeal' 'development 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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Concerning Development Consent / Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Diamond's affidavit evidence alleging an unspecified financial arrangement and favourable indications for development approvals should be admitted." "Whether the alleged agreement or conduct involving the Department of Planning and the respondents was relevant to the Court's de novo determination of the development consent appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit evidence was rejected because the matters raised were not sufficiently relevant to the Court's de novo determination of the development consent appeal and, even if potentially relevant, the allegations were grave but vague, not in proper form, not raised in the Statements of Issues, served late, and concerned matters long within Mr Diamond's knowledge.

Court Disposition

Affidavit evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ['The affidavit sworn by Mr Diamond on 26 February 2004 is rejected.']