Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 107

Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 107

The Court refused the direction because the proposed ecological expert evidence was not reasonably required: the proceedings raised statutory construction issues, most relevant terms were defined in the instruments, the Land and Environment Court is a specialist court capable of considering submissions on the phrases, and the proposed evidence was of only marginal relevance, if any, while likely to generate further cost.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings / Application for Directions Under Pt 31 R 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
The Council's application for a direction to rely on expert evidence is refused.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'judicial Review' 'statutory Construction' 'concept Plans' 'state Environmental Planning Policy']
['procedure' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'administrative Law'] ['expert Evidence' 'judicial Review' 'statutory Construction' 'concept Plans' 'state Environmental Planning Policy']

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 Proceedings / Application for Directions Under Pt 31 R 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a direction should be made allowing the Council to adduce expert ecological evidence in judicial review proceedings.' 'Whether expert evidence was reasonably required on the meaning of phrases in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 and Shellharbour Local Environmental Plan 2000 for purposes of statutory construction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the direction because the proposed ecological expert evidence was not reasonably required: the proceedings raised statutory construction issues, most relevant terms were defined in the instruments, the Land and Environment Court is a specialist court capable of considering submissions on the phrases, and the proposed evidence was of only marginal relevance, if any, while likely to generate further cost.

Court Disposition

The Council's application for a direction to rely on expert evidence is refused.

Orders

  • ["The Council's application for a direction to rely on expert evidence is refused."]