Ventana Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation & Ors [1996] FCA 884

Ventana Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation & Ors [1996] FCA 884

The potential for the new federal legislation to affect the issues was not sufficiently certain to outweigh the prejudice to respondents of a delayed hearing; accordingly, the motion to vacate the trial date was refused but directions would be given to enable some concurrent resolution of related proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Ventana Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Federal Airports Corporation; Second Respondent: Fairways Group Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Fairways Leisure Market Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
motion refused
Legal Topics
Federal Versus State Planning Regulation, Effect of New Federal Legislation on State Approvals, Adjournment Applications
Administrative Law Planning and Environment Law Federal Versus State Planning Regulation Effect of New Federal Legislation on State Approvals Adjournment Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ventana Pty Ltd

Applicant

Federal Airports Corporation

First Respondent

Fairways Group Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Fairways Leisure Market Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial date should be vacated due to recent federal legislative changes (Airports Act 1996, Airports (Transitional) Act 1996)
  2. 2 Whether new federal legislation renders issues in current proceedings academic or futile
  3. 3 Balancing prejudice to parties if hearing is delayed

Ratio Decidendi

The potential for the new federal legislation to affect the issues was not sufficiently certain to outweigh the prejudice to respondents of a delayed hearing; accordingly, the motion to vacate the trial date was refused but directions would be given to enable some concurrent resolution of related proceedings.

Court Disposition

motion refused

Orders

  • Motion to vacate trial date refused.
  • Directions to be given for preliminary question in Essendon proceedings to be heard concurrently with Moorabbin proceedings, trial to remain fixed to commence 16 October 1996.