Serenity Cove Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Sydney Water Corporation [2007] NSWLEC 588

Serenity Cove Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Sydney Water Corporation [2007] NSWLEC 588

The Respondent's motion was dismissed because it sought to put before the Court evidence addressing an alternative issue to the agreed contamination issue, after the parties had conducted the case on an agreed basis and after irrevocable physical changes to the acquired land meant the Applicants could not adequately respond to the matters the Respondent sought to introduce.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Compulsory Acquisition Matter Concerning Land at Kurnell Resumed for a Desalination Plant / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the Respondent Dated 30 August 2007 Seeking Leave to Provide Expert Reports to the Agreed Single Contamination Expert and to Have Him Answer Specified Questions
Outcome
The Respondent's Notice of Motion of 30 August 2007 was dismissed; costs were reserved; directions and consent orders were made concerning any proposed question to Mr Molinari, Dr Kevin Mills, and the First and Second Applicants' motion.
Legal Topics
['single Expert Evidence' 'contamination Assessment' 'intrusive Testing' 'prejudice From Physical Alteration of Acquired Land' 'remediation Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'compulsory Acquisition' 'evidence'] ['single Expert Evidence' 'contamination Assessment' 'intrusive Testing' 'prejudice From Physical Alteration of Acquired Land' 'remediation Costs']

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

Compulsory Acquisition Matter Concerning Land at Kurnell Resumed for a Desalination Plant / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the Respondent Dated 30 August 2007 Seeking Leave to Provide Expert Reports to the Agreed Single Contamination Expert and to Have Him Answer Specified Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for four reports concerning contamination assessment of the fill mound on the acquired property to be provided to the agreed single contamination expert, Mr Molinari.' 'Whether Mr Molinari should be ordered to answer specified questions concerning intrusive testing results in the GHD report and remediation costs.' 'Whether the Applicants would suffer prejudice because the acquiring authority had physically altered the acquired land after the parties had proceeded on an agreed expert-evidence regime.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent's motion was dismissed because it sought to put before the Court evidence addressing an alternative issue to the agreed contamination issue, after the parties had conducted the case on an agreed basis and after irrevocable physical changes to the acquired land meant the Applicants could not adequately respond to the matters the Respondent sought to introduce.

Court Disposition

The Respondent's Notice of Motion of 30 August 2007 was dismissed; costs were reserved; directions and consent orders were made concerning any proposed question to Mr Molinari, Dr Kevin Mills, and the First and Second Applicants' motion.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's Notice of Motion of 30 August 2007 is dismissed." "Costs of the hearing on the Respondent's Notice of Motion of 30 August 2007 are reserved." 'The Respondent is to serve any proposed question to be put to Mr Molinari by 12 pm on 12 September 2007.' 'The First and Second Applicants are to use their...