Gorczynski v Leichhardt Municipal Council & Ors [2001] NSWLEC 76

Gorczynski v Leichhardt Municipal Council & Ors [2001] NSWLEC 76

The Court adopted the report because the opponents identified no prejudice, error of principle, error in reasoning, factual finding or conclusion, or basis for inferring that the referee should have drawn different conclusions. The opponents' expert report and participation in the on-site meeting gave them an opportunity to present their contentions, satisfying Pt 72 r 8(5); incorporation by reference of that report substantially satisfied Pt 72 r 11. Adoption also retained utility because the reference was incomplete without an order and the findings could assist the final determination, including costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Motion Concerning Adoption of Referee's Report / Notice of Motion by the Applicant for Adoption of a Referee's Report
Outcome
The applicant's motion was granted and the referee's report was adopted.
Legal Topics
['reference of Technical Issues to Referee' "adoption of Referee's Report" 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'utility of Adopting Report After Demolition' 'supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 72']
['practice and Procedure' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['reference of Technical Issues to Referee' "adoption of Referee's Report" 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'utility of Adopting Report After Demolition' 'supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 72']

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

Practice and Procedure Motion Concerning Adoption of Referee's Report / Notice of Motion by the Applicant for Adoption of a Referee's Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the report of Geoffrey Gleeson dated 11 October 2000 should be adopted.' "Whether the second and third respondents were denied procedural fairness because they misunderstood the referee's appointment as being under Pt 39 rather than Pt 72 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970." 'Whether non-annexure of statements under Pt 72 r 8(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 meant the requirements of Pt 72 r 11 were not satisfied.' 'Whether adoption of the report lacked utility because the subject structures had been demolished.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court adopted the report because the opponents identified no prejudice, error of principle, error in reasoning, factual finding or conclusion, or basis for inferring that the referee should have drawn different conclusions. The opponents' expert report and participation in the on-site meeting gave them an opportunity to present their contentions, satisfying Pt 72 r 8(5); incorporation by reference of that report substantially satisfied Pt 72 r 11. Adoption also retained utility because the reference was incomplete without an order and the findings could assist the final determination, including costs.

Court Disposition

The applicant's motion was granted and the referee's report was adopted.

Orders

  • ['The report of Geoffrey Gleeson dated 11 October 2000 be adopted.' 'The cost of the reference will be costs in the cause.' 'The matter listed for further directions before the registrar of the Court at 9 am on 7 May 2001.']