Karimbla Constructions Services (NSW) Pty Ltd v Premier of New South Wales [2019] NSWLEC 76

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karimbla Constructions Services (NSW) Pty Ltd v Premier of New South Wales [2019] NSWLEC 76 Hearing dates: 31 May 2019 Date of orders: 04 June 2019 Decision date: 06 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Moore J Decision: See [28], [84] and [85], directions at [86] Catchwords: NOTICE OF MOTION - application to rely on Amended Summons - application not opposed by active Respondents - leave granted - active Respondents granted leave to rely on Amended Points of Defence NOTICE OF MOTION - application to remove Respondent - application to remove Premier of New South Wales as a respondent to the proceedings - were the rights and/or liabilities of the Premier engaged by the Applicant's Amended Summons - rights and/or liabilities of the Premier not called into question by the Amended Summons - was the Premier and otherwise necessary party to the proceedings - Premier not otherwise necessary party to the proceedings - Premier removed as a respondent to the proceedings NOTICE OF MOTION - application to permit discovery - application for orders for discovery against the remaining active Respondents to the proceedings - question as to whether there were any matters genuinely in dispute arising from the Applicant's pleaded case that made discovery appropriate - concessions by active Respondents in Points of Defence limiting the nature of the matters in contest - proposed discovery not seeking to establish Applicant's case as pleaded but seeking to establish whether there was any other basis upon which the Applicant could maintain a case - application for discovery a "fishing expedition", and to be refused on this basis - question of whether the extent of the discovery sought was oppressive in light of the time and costs that would be necessary to respond to it - was the proposed discovery inhibiting of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the issues genuinely in dispute in the proceedings - breadth of discovery contrary to the objectives of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the issues genuinely in dispute in the proceedings - was the proposed discovery so broad as to encompass material sought to be discovered that could not possibly relate to the matters genuinely in dispute between the parties as pleaded in the Amended Summons - discovery sought too broad - three separate valid bases upon which discovery should be refused - motion dismissed COSTS - no reason why costs should not follow the event - no costs appropriate for motion for leave to amend as no contest involved - Applicant (Respondent to Motion for removal of the Premier as a respondent) unsuccessful in resisting the Premier's removal - costs order appropriate on the removal motion - Applicant unsuccessful on application for discovery - no reason not to make costs order on discovery motion - two costs orders made Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Greater Sydney Commission Act 2015, s10(1)(c1) Interpretation Act 1987, s34 Planning Legislation Amendment (Greater Sydney Commission) Act 2018 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 Cases Cited: China First Pty Ltd & Anor v Mount Isa Mines Limited & Ors [2018] QCA 350 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Goater [2016] NSWSC 710 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Limited v Chiron Corporation (1994) 55 FCR 194 Peters v Coastace [2006] NSWSC 289 The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13; [1980] HCA 13 Trade Practices Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd (No 4) [1995] FCA 1418; (1995) 58 FCR 426 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Karimbla Construction Services (NSW) Pty Limited (Applicant) Premier of New South Wales (First Respondent) New South Wales Minister for Planning (Second Respondent) Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment (Third Respondent) Greater Sydney Commission (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Bennett AC QC/Mr S Nash, barrister (Applicant) Mr J Kirk SC/Ms Z Heger, barrister (First to Third Respondents) Submitting appearance (Fourth Respondent)