Meck v Waverley Council [2005] NSWLEC 269

Meck v Waverley Council [2005] NSWLEC 269

Because the Court expert process should generally proceed on the material already provided to or generated by Council for the application, and because allowing further complex written submissions would increase costs disproportionately in a modest planning appeal, the Council's further submission was not to be provided to or considered by the Court expert.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Relating to an Application to Modify a Consent for Construction of a Dual Occupancy / Directions Dispute About Material to Be Provided to a Court Appointed Expert
Outcome
The applicants obtained the direction sought; the Council's further submission was excluded from consideration by the Court expert.
Legal Topics
['court Appointed Expert' 'expert Evidence' 'modification of Development Consent' 'material to Be Provided to Expert' 'litigation Costs']
['planning and Environment Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['court Appointed Expert' 'expert Evidence' 'modification of Development Consent' 'material to Be Provided to Expert' 'litigation 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

Appeal Relating to an Application to Modify a Consent for Construction of a Dual Occupancy / Directions Dispute About Material to Be Provided to a Court Appointed Expert

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, after a Court expert has been appointed, a party may provide further written material for the expert to consider.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Court expert process should generally proceed on the material already provided to or generated by Council for the application, and because allowing further complex written submissions would increase costs disproportionately in a modest planning appeal, the Council's further submission was not to be provided to or considered by the Court expert.

Court Disposition

The applicants obtained the direction sought; the Council's further submission was excluded from consideration by the Court expert.

Orders

  • ['The further submission prepared by the Council should not be provided to Mr Player and it is not necessary for him to consider it.']