Pittking Properties Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 122

Pittking Properties Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2019] NSWLEC 122

Expedition was warranted because the Land and Environment Court was the relevant court, the subject matter of the litigation could be lost if not heard quickly, the matter was of public importance, the Applicant had not delayed in commencing proceedings or bringing the motion after notice of commencement of stage 2...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Expedition of Final Hearing and Procedural Orders
Outcome
The Applicant's notice of motion dated 20 August 2019 was upheld.
Legal Topics
['expedition of Proceedings' 'judicial Review of Cycleway Project Approval' 'environmental Assessment Under Pt 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'expert Evidence']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['expedition of Proceedings' 'judicial Review of Cycleway Project Approval' 'environmental Assessment Under Pt 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'expert Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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 Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Expedition of Final Hearing and Procedural Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the final hearing of the judicial review proceedings should be expedited.' 'Whether the Applicant should have leave to serve expert traffic evidence under r 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether expert evidence may be prepared in relation to the ground alleging breach of s 5.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

Expedition was warranted because the Land and Environment Court was the relevant court, the subject matter of the litigation could be lost if not heard quickly, the matter was of public importance, the Applicant had not delayed in commencing proceedings or bringing the motion after notice of commencement of stage 2 works, and procedural orders could ensure efficient preparation for an early hearing. Leave to serve expert traffic evidence was granted, and the Court declined at this stage to prevent the Applicant's expert from preparing material on the s 5.5 ground.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's notice of motion dated 20 August 2019 was upheld.

Orders

  • ['These proceedings be expedited.' 'By 30 August 2019, the Respondent to serve all documents that record matters relevant to the decision by the Respondent made on 17 May 2019 to proceed with the Bondi Junction cycleway along Spring Street, Bondi Junction.' 'By 6 September 2019, the Respondent is to file and serve...