Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Vumbaca v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Su v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [2011] NSWLEC 48 Hearing dates: 25 March 2011 Decision date: 25 March 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Biscoe J Decision: Order that the two proceedings be heard together. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: - two Class 3 proceedings for compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands in very close proximity with common planning and valuation issues and acquired for the same purpose - order that the two proceedings be heard together. Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: 30935/10 Vumbaca (Applicant) v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Respondent) 30947/10 Su (Applicant) v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Respondent) Representation: 30935/10 Mr J Lazarus (Applicant) Ms T A Sheehan, solicitor (Respondent) 30947/10 Mr J Lazarus (Applicant) Ms M Peatman, solicitor (Respondent) 30935/10 Robert Balzola (Applicant) Mallesons (Respondent) 30947/10 Robert Balzola (Applicant) Hunt and Hunt (Respondent) File Number(s): 30935/10 and 30947/10 EX TEMPORE Judgment 1These are notices of motion by the applicants in these two proceedings for an order that they be heard together. The respondent does not oppose the order. 2Proceedings 30935 of 2010 ( Vumbaca Proceedings ) relate to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land at 250 Byron Rd, Leppington ( the Vumbaca Land ). Proceedings 30947 of 2010 ( Su Proceedings ) relate to the compulsory acquisition of land at 226 Byron Rd, Leppington ( the Su Land ) for the same purpose. Both lands were acquired on the same day, 23 July 2010 for the same purpose, the construction of the South-West Rail Link. 3The applicants in both matters have the same solicitors and counsel and have engaged the same planning and valuation experts. The two properties are in very close proximity on the same street. A large number of planning issues are common to both cases. Similarly, common valuation issues are likely to arise. These similarities are set out in more detail in the affidavit of Robert Balzola filed on 21 March 2011. 4The estimate of the solicitor for the applicants is that if the two matters are heard separately, the hearing of each would occupy approximately three to four days but that if the two matters were heard together the hearing would occupy no more than four days in total. It appears that the respondent in each case has engaged, or proposes to engage, separate planning and valuation experts in addition to having separate legal representation. It is the applicants' submission, therefore, that if the two matters are heard together there will therefore be a substantial saving in both public and private resources. I accept this submission. 5The applicants also submit that if the two matters are not heard together there is a substantial risk of inconsistent judgments because of the commonality of the planning and valuation issues that are likely to arise in the two proceedings. That, I think, would depend on whether the respondent's expert witnesses are different in each case. 6In my opinion, the circumstances cry out for an order that the two proceedings be heard together. I so order. Amendments 07 March 2012 - omission of jurisdiction field Amended paragraphs: cover page DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 March 2012