NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rossi v Living Choice Australia Ltd t/as Living Choice & Ors [2012] NSWLEC 112 Hearing dates: 15 May 2012 Decision date: 16 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: See [66] Catchwords: EXPERT EVIDENCE: application to adduce expert evidence in judicial review proceedings - application made before pleadings finalised - whether leave granted under r 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - whether expert evidence reasonably required - leave refused.
COSTS: whether applicant to pay the costs thrown away occasioned by amendments to points of claim - whether applicant to pay costs of joinder of third respondent -applicant to pay costs of first and second respondent thrown away occasioned by amendments to points of claim and of joinder of third respondent where applicant ought to have been aware third respondent was the consent authority - applicant to pay first respondent's costs of motion to adduce expert evidence. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56-60, 98 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 23G, 79C, 81, 96 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 31.17(b), 31.19 Cases Cited: DEXUS Funds Management Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2011] NSWLEC 156 INL Group Ltd v Director-General, New South Wales Department of Planning [2011] NSWLEC 256 Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534 Moolarben Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Director-General of the (former) Department of Industry and Investment NSW (Agriculture Division) [2011] NSWLEC 191 Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWCA 195 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Anthony Rossi (Applicant) Living Choice Australia Ltd t/as Living Choice (First Respondent) Hills Shire Council (Second Respondent) Joint Regional Planning Panel (Third Respondent) Representation: Ms J F Berglund (Applicant) Ms H P Irish (First Respondent) Mr J Lazarus (Second Respondent) N/A (Third Respondent) D G Briggs and Associates (Applicant) Pikes Lawyers (First Respondent) Maddocks (Second Respondent) N/A (Third Respondent) File Number(s): 40018 of 2012
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