Perilya Broken Hill Limited v Valuer-General (No 7) [2015] NSWLEC 67

Perilya Broken Hill Limited v Valuer-General (No 7) [2015] NSWLEC 67

After four years of litigation including an appeal and remitter, with limited remaining issues, evidence closed except for imminent expert conferencing and reports, and final hearing dates fixed by consent only weeks away, the Court held that it was preferable to press on and determine the remaining issues without further delay rather than vacate the hearing dates for an interlocutory appeal process that could delay final determination for another year or so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Valuation Appeal Concerning Mining Land; Notice of Motion to Vacate Final Hearing Dates / Interlocutory Motion After Determination of a Separate Question and Before Final Hearing
Outcome
The applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 April 2015 to vacate the hearing dates was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['motion to Vacate Hearing Dates' 'separate Question' 'leave to Appeal' 'valuation of Mining Land' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'land Valuation'] ['motion to Vacate Hearing Dates' 'separate Question' 'leave to Appeal' 'valuation of Mining Land' 'case Management']

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 3 Valuation Appeal Concerning Mining Land; Notice of Motion to Vacate Final Hearing Dates / Interlocutory Motion After Determination of a Separate Question and Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether final hearing dates should be vacated to allow the applicant to seek leave to appeal the determination of a separate question.' 'Whether the significance of the separate question and possible inefficiency or expense justified delaying the final hearing.' "Whether the Court's duty to facilitate the quick, just and cheap resolution of the real issues favoured pressing on with the final hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

After four years of litigation including an appeal and remitter, with limited remaining issues, evidence closed except for imminent expert conferencing and reports, and final hearing dates fixed by consent only weeks away, the Court held that it was preferable to press on and determine the remaining issues without further delay rather than vacate the hearing dates for an interlocutory appeal process that could delay final determination for another year or so.

Court Disposition

The applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 April 2015 to vacate the hearing dates was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 April 2015 to vacate the hearing dates is dismissed."]