Wollondilly Shire Council v Foxman Environmental Development Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 35

Wollondilly Shire Council v Foxman Environmental Development Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 35

Leave to reopen was refused because the proposed volumetric survey was equivocal and of negligible probative value; tendering it with the covering letter could prejudice the respondents and would very likely require a further adjournment; and reopening would not be in the interests of justice or consistent with the overriding purpose of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Application on the Last Day of the Hearing During Closing Submissions to Reopen the Applicant's Case to Adduce Further Documentary Evidence Produced Pursuant to a Subpoena
Outcome
Leave to reopen refused
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Case' 'subpoena' 'further Documentary Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudice' 'adjournment' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['application to Reopen Case' 'subpoena' 'further Documentary Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudice' 'adjournment' 'overriding Purpose']

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

Class 4 Proceedings / Application on the Last Day of the Hearing During Closing Submissions to Reopen the Applicant's Case to Adduce Further Documentary Evidence Produced Pursuant to a Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the council should be granted leave to reopen its case to adduce further documentary evidence produced pursuant to a subpoena to the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.' 'Whether the subpoena should be set aside for lack of legitimate forensic purpose or excessive breadth.' 'Whether the proposed volumetric survey and covering letter had sufficient probative value to justify reopening despite prejudice, delay or adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused because the proposed volumetric survey was equivocal and of negligible probative value; tendering it with the covering letter could prejudice the respondents and would very likely require a further adjournment; and reopening would not be in the interests of justice or consistent with the overriding purpose of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Leave to reopen refused

Orders

  • ["The council's application for leave to reopen their case is refused."]