Marshall Rural Pty Ltd v Basscave Limited [2015] NSWLEC 86

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Marshall Rural Pty Ltd v Basscave Limited [2015] NSWLEC 86 Hearing dates: 26 May 2015 Decision date: 26 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pain J Decision: 1. The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22 April 2015 is dismissed. 2. Costs reserved. Catchwords: PROCEDURE – application for expedited hearing refused Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 61 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 2.1 Cases Cited: Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council [2013] NSWLEC 116 Greetings Oxford Koala Hotel Pty Ltd v Oxford Square Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 33 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Marshall Rural Pty Ltd (Applicant) Basscave Pty Limited (First Respondent) Hawkesbury City Council (Second Respondent) Argosy Agricultural Group Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr RPL Lancaster SC (Applicant) MR CM McEwen SC (First and Third Respondents)

Solicitors: Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant) Doyle Wilson solicitors (First and Third Respondents) Submitting appearance (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 40313 of 2015

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. This is a Notice of Motion dated 22 April 2015 filed by Marshall Rural Pty Limited (the Applicant) seeking an order for expedition heard as the duty judge today. The Applicant is seeking as substantive relief in these Class 4 proceedings an order to restrain the use of Basscave Pty Limited's (the First Respondent) property leased by Argos Agricultural Group Pty Ltd (the Third Respondent) for weddings and non-polo functions. The First Respondent's property is located near Richmond and contains Sunnybrook Barn, the Polo Barn and the Grandstand. These proceedings were commenced on 10 April 2015. Both the Applicant and the Respondents operate polo clubs at their respective properties which are next door to each other. The Applicant's complaint does not concern polo functions. Hawkesbury City Council (the Council), the Second Respondent, has filed a submitting appearance. The First and Third Respondents (the Respondents) were represented by the same counsel.