Rivers SOS Inc v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 216

Rivers SOS Inc v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 216

Dr Brown's affidavit is admissible as the applicant has established sufficient relevance to three grounds of the further amended points of claim. The affidavit, when read as a whole, establishes a sufficient factual basis and reasoning for expert opinion as required for admissibility.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Expert evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'judicial Review' 'expert Evidence' 'environmental Approval']
['environmental Law' 'administrative Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'judicial Review' 'expert Evidence' 'environmental Approval']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the expert affidavit evidence of Dr Brown is admissible and relevant to the grounds of judicial review' 'Whether the expert evidence sufficiently discloses the factual basis and reasoning required for admissibility' 'Relevance of evidence not before the decision-maker in judicial review']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Brown's affidavit is admissible as the applicant has established sufficient relevance to three grounds of the further amended points of claim. The affidavit, when read as a whole, establishes a sufficient factual basis and reasoning for expert opinion as required for admissibility.

Court Disposition

Expert evidence admitted

Orders

  • ["Dr Brown's affidavit is allowed in full to be read and relied upon." 'Affidavits of Lindsay Gilbert, Dr Noel Patrick Merrick, Dr Greg Tarrant, and Arthur Annesley Waddington are also allowed to be read and relied upon by the second respondent.']