Reysson Pty Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 168

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Reysson Pty Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 168 Hearing dates: 23 September 2011 Decision date: 23 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Pepper J Decision: Hearing date for preliminary question vacated and orders made in accordance with the short minutes of order. Catchwords: PROCEDURE: application to vacate hearing of preliminary question on the basis that expert evidence was required to meet what was initially believed to be uncontroversial expert surveying evidence - expert evidence required to verify surveying evidence - if evidence verified the preliminary question would be wholly resolved - hearing date vacated Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 ss 56, 58, 59, 60 Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 Reysson v Roads and Traffic Authority [2011] NSWLEC153 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Reysson Pty Ltd (Applicant) Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Mr Gough (Solicitor) (Applicant) Ms Davis (Solicitor) (Respondent) Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant) Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 30921 of 2010

EX TEMPORE Judgment

The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales Seeks to Vacate the Hearing of a Preliminary Question 1This is an application brought by the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales ("the RTA") to vacate the hearing of a preliminary question listed on 29 September 2011. 2The reason for doing so is contained in an affidavit of Ms Kirsty Davis affirmed 22 September 2011. Ms Davis is the solicitor employed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers, the solicitors acting on behalf of the RTA. 3Essentially, the reason for seeking the vacation of the hearing date is to respond to the expert evidence of Mr Philip Wyper, a registered surveyor, filed by the applicant in the proceedings. The reply evidence is envisaged to be in the form of technical advice from an engineer and/or a surveyor. 4The RTA has briefed Mr Paul Parker, a civil engineer, and a registered surveyor to advise on the content of Mr Wyper's affidavit. Mr Parker has indicated that it will take approximately a week and a half for himself and the surveyor to review the material and provide advice to the RTA.