NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Penrith City Council v Settlers Estate Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 99 Hearing dates: 15 July 2020 Date of orders: 15 July 2020 Decision date: 24 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: Leave to re-open to adduce expert survey evidence refused with costs. See orders at [70]. Catchwords: PROCEDURE: second application to re-open by respondents to adduce further expert survey evidence – expert evidence appended to affidavit of solicitor for respondents – no cogent explanation for not adducing the evidence in the respondents' case – applicant notified of application but evidence the subject of the notification was not the evidence the subject of the application to re-open – expert evidence conceded by respondents to be inadmissible in its current form – application would cause delay in the finalisation of the proceedings because it would necessitate the preparation of reply survey evidence by the applicant – matter the subject of an urgent hearing at the request of the respondents – respondents conceded that other evidence available to establish that the impugned works were not carried out in the wrong location and therefore contrary to approval – application dismissed with costs. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.46, 4.47 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 2.1, 29.5, 31.19, 31.21 Water Management Act 2000 Cases Cited: Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 404; (2014) 206 LGERA 40 Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd v GrainCorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 706 Wollondilly Shire Council v Foxman Environmental Development Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 35 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Penrith City Council (Applicant) Settlers Estate Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Statewide Planning Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) George W Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) Eastern O'Connell Pty Ltd (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T To (Applicant) J Doyle (First to Fourth Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate