Hayward v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 87

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hayward v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 87 Hearing dates: 18 June 2019 Date of orders: 18 June 2019 Decision date: 19 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [57]. Catchwords: NOTICE OF MOTION – whether hearing dates in Class 3 proceedings should be vacated due to late identification of further contention – motion dismissed with costs. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56, 57, 58, 59 and 66(1) Conveyancing Act 1919, Sch 8, Pt 12 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, ss 55(a) and (d) and 66 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Burwood Council v Iglesia Ni Cristo [2019] NSWLEC 75 Kenoss Pty Ltd v Palerang Council [2013] NSWCA 174 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Brian Daniel Hayward (First Applicant) Rochelle DeMarco (Second Applicant) Sydney Water Corporation (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Perkins (Solicitor) (First and Second Applicant) J McKelvey (Respondent)

Solicitors: Project Lawyers (First and Second Applicant) Bartier Perry (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/168127

Judgment

The Applicants in Class 3 Compulsory Acquisition Proceedings Seek to Vacate Hearing Dates 1. By notice of motion filed 13 June 2019, the applicants, Ms Rochelle DeMarco and Mr Brian Hayward, moved the Court to vacate the final hearing of Class 3 compulsory acquisition proceedings listed on 25 and 26 June 2019. 2. The motion was supported by an affidavit of Mr Anthony Perkins sworn on 13 June 2019. Mr Perkins is the applicants' legal representative. 3. This was the second time that the applicants had sought the vacation of final hearing dates. At the first vacation application the applicants were successful due to the illness of their town planner. 4. The respondent, Sydney Water Corporation ("SWC"), opposed the application. 5. The notice of motion was dismissed after oral argument. In order to avoid the cost of the parties returning for the delivery of an ex tempore judgment, the Court stated that it would publish its reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.