Monti v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWLEC 34

Monti v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWLEC 34

Given the late emergence of a significant new scenario (After Case 2) and the Respondent's late service of expert evidence critical to case preparation, the Applicants would be severely prejudiced and unable to comply with the Court's directions and timetable; thus, vacation of the hearing dates is required to ensure just resolution and procedural fairness. The Applicants are entitled to costs thrown away by the vacation, but there are no special circumstances justifying an order for indemnity costs. Additional costs associated with the new scenario are to be costs in the cause.

Parties
First Applicant: Allan Keith Monti; Second Applicant: Phillip Daniel Monti; Third Applicant: Christopher John Monti; Respondent: Roads and Maritime Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Land Acquisition Compensation Objection (class 3) / Notice of Motion to Vacate Hearing Dates and Case Management/costs Orders
Outcome
Application (Notice of Motion) granted in part; hearing dates vacated; costs ordered as specified
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Costs, Adjournment/vacation of Hearing Dates, Just Terms Compensation, Case Management
Property Law Civil Procedure Compulsory Acquisition Costs Adjournment/vacation of Hearing Dates Just Terms Compensation 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Keith Monti

First Applicant

Phillip Daniel Monti

Second Applicant

Christopher John Monti

Third Applicant

Roads and Maritime Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Acquisition Compensation Objection (class 3) / Notice of Motion to Vacate Hearing Dates and Case Management/costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the scheduled hearing dates should be vacated due to late emergence of the 'After Case 2' scenario and late service of expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing dates and on what basis
  3. 3 Whether the additional costs relating to 'After Case 2' should be costs in the cause

Ratio Decidendi

Given the late emergence of a significant new scenario (After Case 2) and the Respondent's late service of expert evidence critical to case preparation, the Applicants would be severely prejudiced and unable to comply with the Court's directions and timetable; thus, vacation of the hearing dates is required to ensure just resolution and procedural fairness. The Applicants are entitled to costs thrown away by the vacation, but there are no special circumstances justifying an order for indemnity costs. Additional costs associated with the new scenario are to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application (Notice of Motion) granted in part; hearing dates vacated; costs ordered as specified

Orders

  • That the hearing dates commencing 22 March 2018 be vacated.
  • That the date of 19 March 2018, as appearing in Order 8 of the Court Orders dated 12 March 2018, be substituted with 29 March 2018, with supplementary expert reports filed before close of business on that date.