Jiang v Sydney Metro [2023] NSWLEC 126

Jiang v Sydney Metro [2023] NSWLEC 126

The applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their lack of preparedness and delay in serving their expert valuation evidence and in seeking to adduce further evidence. The prejudice and harm resulting from vacating the hearing dates would outweigh any asserted prejudice to the applicants. The case management interests of the Court and overriding purpose of facilitating just, quick and cheap resolution dictate that the hearing should proceed as listed, and leave to adduce further evidence be refused.

Parties
First Applicant: Laiwen Jiang; Second Applicant: Siu Yu Chan; Respondent: Sydney Metro
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Compensation Claim (land and Environment Court) / Interlocutory Application for Vacation of Hearing Dates and Leave to Adduce Further Evidence
Outcome
Applicants' notice of motion to vacate hearing dates and adduce further evidence dismissed. Modified directions for exchange and preparation of evidence and conduct of hearing continued.
Legal Topics
Vacation of Hearing Dates, Leave to Adduce Further Evidence, Case Management, Expert Evidence, Land Valuation, Practice and Procedure
Compulsory Acquisition and Compensation Civil Procedure Vacation of Hearing Dates Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Case Management Expert Evidence Land Valuation Practice and Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laiwen Jiang

First Applicant

Siu Yu Chan

Second Applicant

Sydney Metro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 3 Compensation Claim (land and Environment Court) / Interlocutory Application for Vacation of Hearing Dates and Leave to Adduce Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing dates for the proceedings should be vacated
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to adduce further expert and lay evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their lack of preparedness and delay in serving their expert valuation evidence and in seeking to adduce further evidence. The prejudice and harm resulting from vacating the hearing dates would outweigh any asserted prejudice to the applicants. The case management interests of the Court and overriding purpose of facilitating just, quick and cheap resolution dictate that the hearing should proceed as listed, and leave to adduce further evidence be refused.

Court Disposition

Applicants' notice of motion to vacate hearing dates and adduce further evidence dismissed. Modified directions for exchange and preparation of evidence and conduct of hearing continued.

Orders

  • Applicants' notice of motion filed 15 November 2023, as amended, is dismissed.
  • Orders 7 and 8 of the orders made 23 October 2023 are vacated and replaced: parties to serve valuation evidence by 5pm 20 November 2023 and provide joint expert valuation report by 5pm 23 November 2023.