Nash Bros Builders Pty Ltd v Riverina Water County Council [2014] NSWLEC 140

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nash Bros Builders Pty Ltd v Riverina Water County Council [2014] NSWLEC 140 Hearing dates: 3 September 2014 Decision date: 03 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: Application for joinder and amendment of originating process and points of claim refused. Catchwords: PROCEDURE: late application to amend summons to join a new party and to add a new claim - no explanation provided for delay - prejudice to other party - would necessitate adjournment of proceedings - application refused. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 57-60, 64, 149B(2) Local Government Act 1993, s 608 Recovery of Imposts Act 1963, s 4 Water Management Act 2000, s 306 Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Nash Bros Builders Pty Ltd (First Applicant) Nash Bros Constructions Pty Ltd (Second Applicant) Riverina Water County Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr A Galasso SC with Mr T Prince (First and Second Applicants) Mr R Lancaster SC with Mr N Eastman (Respondent) Bradley Allen Love (First and Second Applicants) Local Government Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 40028 of 2014

Judgment

The Applicants Seek Leave to Join an Additional Party and to Amend their Further Amended Summons 1The applicants, Nash Bros Builders Pty Ltd ("NBB") and Nash Bros Construction Pty Ltd ("NBC"), apply for leave to amend their Further Amended Summons and their points of claim. The purpose of the amendments is to add Grange Lifestyle Village ("Grange") as a third applicant to the proceedings and to add a claim by Grange for repayment of $107,159, and to plead the additional matters necessary to establish this claim. 2The application was made on the second day of a two day hearing after evidence was elicited in cross-examination from Mr Chris Nash, a witness appearing for the applicants. In order to ensure that the hearing finished in the time allocated, the Court dismissed the application with a promise to publish its reasons at a later date, which it now does.