Bright v Acrocert Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 173

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bright v Acrocert Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 173 Hearing dates: 20 July 2012 Decision date: 20 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Craig J Decision: (1)By consent and pursuant to Pt 6, r 6.32 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 I substitute Brendan Lantry as the first respondent in the proceedings in place of Acrocert Pty Limited. (2)All documents served in the proceedings upon Acrocert Pty Limited are deemed to have been served upon Brendan Lantry and the notices of appearance filed on behalf of Acrocert Pty Limited is deemed to be an appearance on behalf of Brendan Lantry. (3)By consent I give leave pursuant to Pt 31, r 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 for the parties to adduce expert evidence directed to the interpretation of the plans that are the subject of Complying Development Certificate CD 11-1459 issued by the first respondent on 20 June 2011 and relevant to the matter pleaded in paragraph 25 of the applicants' Points of Claim dated 11 May 2012, as that matter is particularised in the letter dated 8 June 2012 from the applicants' solicitors to Laycock Solicitors (see Exhibit A). (4)I give leave pursuant to Pt 31, r 31.9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 for the parties to adduce expert evidence directed to the interpretation of the plans that are the subject of Complying Development Certificate CD 11-1459 issued by the first respondent on 20 June 2011 and relevant to the matters pleaded in paragraphs 13 and 18 of the applicant's Points of Claim dated 11 May 2012. (5)Costs are reserved. (6)Orders otherwise in accordance with the Short Minutes of Order initialled by me and placed with the Court papers. Catchwords: PROCEDURE: - application for substitution of party pursuant to Pt 6 r 6.32 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - application by consent - substitution order granted - liability and conduct of original party transferred to substituted party EVIDENCE: - expert evidence - application to adduce expert evidence in judicial review proceedings - whether leave should be granted pursuant to Pt 31 r 31.19 of The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - whether expert evidence reasonably required - expert evidence reasonably required - leave granted Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 Cases Cited: Anchor Mortlock Murray and Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd (1971) 2 NSWLR 278 Friends of King Edward Park v Newcastle City Council [2012] NSWLEC 113 Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWCA 195 ULV Pty Ltd v Scott (1990) 69 LGRA 212 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Andrew Eddy Bright (First applicant) Mark William Deller (Second applicant)