CSR Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1244

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CSR Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1244 Hearing dates: 13 November 2013 Decision date: 24 December 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Moore SC Decision: See text of judgment Catchwords: EVIDENCE: Late notice of material fact; application to vacate hearing dates; effect of agreement between the parties; evidence contrary to agreement; rejection of evidence Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: CSR Limited (Applicant)

Valuer-General (Respondent) Representation: Mr P Clay SC (Applicant) Ms M Carpenter, barrister (Respondent) Gadens Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 31034 of 2012 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Introduction 1SENIOR COMMISSIONER: On 13 November, I dealt with two Notices of Motion in these proceedings, one filed by the applicant and the other filed by the respondent. I dealt with each of those Motions, both of them arising on a short notice basis, by giving a decision with respect to each but indicating that I would provide reasons for my rulings as a portion of the judgment in the subsequent substantive proceedings. 2As it transpired, on the third day of the substantive proceedings, the parties handed up consent orders resolving the valuation that was in dispute between them and removing the necessity for adjudication and, hence, removing the necessity for a judgment that could have provided a vehicle for the reasons for the decisions on each of the procedural motions. 3I subsequently caused an enquiry to be made of the parties to ask if they still wished me to provide reasons for my procedural decisions, indicating that if either party required written reasons I would publish them. As such a request has been made; these are the reasons for my determinations concerning the two motions. For convenience, although the two motions were distinctly different, this judgment constitutes a consolidated set of reasons - but reasons concerning each motion given separately.