The Eddie Arnott Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2025] NSWLEC 12

The Eddie Arnott Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2025] NSWLEC 12

The procedural rules and applicable statutory provisions preclude the admission of evidence referring to without prejudice communications, communications during the s 10A negotiation process under the Just Terms Act, and material from conciliation conferences, in Class 3 proceedings; late and non-compliant affidavits causing undue prejudice will not be admitted without leave; any challenge to the validity of s 10A process is not appropriately brought in this proceeding.

Parties
Applicant: The Eddie Arnott Corporation Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Sydney Metro; Second Respondent: Imad Arnaout
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Compensation Objection / Procedural Rulings Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Affidavit of Dr Imad Arnaout dated 18 February 2025 rejected; limited leave granted to file compliant lay affidavit; timetable for objections to any fresh evidence set.
Legal Topics
Objections to Evidence, Just Terms Compensation, Exclusion of Without Prejudice Communications, Conciliation Conference Evidence, Collateral Challenge to Administrative Process
Land Acquisition Civil Procedure Objections to Evidence Just Terms Compensation Exclusion of Without Prejudice Communications Conciliation Conference Evidence Collateral Challenge to Administrative Process

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Eddie Arnott Corporation Pty Ltd

Applicant

Sydney Metro

First Respondent

Imad Arnaout

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 3 Compensation Objection / Procedural Rulings Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of communications during s 10A negotiation period may be admitted
  2. 2 Whether communications from conciliation conferences are admissible
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to rely on a late affidavit exceeding page limits

Ratio Decidendi

The procedural rules and applicable statutory provisions preclude the admission of evidence referring to without prejudice communications, communications during the s 10A negotiation process under the Just Terms Act, and material from conciliation conferences, in Class 3 proceedings; late and non-compliant affidavits causing undue prejudice will not be admitted without leave; any challenge to the validity of s 10A process is not appropriately brought in this proceeding.

Court Disposition

Affidavit of Dr Imad Arnaout dated 18 February 2025 rejected; limited leave granted to file compliant lay affidavit; timetable for objections to any fresh evidence set.

Orders

  • Affidavit of Dr Imad Arnaout dated 18 February 2025 rejected.
  • Applicant and second respondent granted leave to file and serve an additional lay affidavit by 2pm on Friday, 28 February 2025, no longer than 20 pages, and not referring to without prejudice communications, communications during s 10A period, or conciliation conference material.