4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd - [2017] NSWLEC 133

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: 4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 133
Hearing dates: 18 September 2017
Date of orders: 18 September 2017
Decision date: 18 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Moore J
Decision:
See [40]

Catchwords: REMITTER FROM COURT OF APPEAL - setting date for remitted hearing - balancing need for prompt consideration of issues potentially affecting the State electricity grid with allowing time for the applicant NGO to prepare for the remitted hearing - appropriate to allow preparation time - later (but still early) hearing date set for hearing of remitted matter
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56
Cases Cited: 4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 191
4Nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 121
Rossi v Living Choice Australia Limited [2015] NSWCA 244
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: 4nature Incorporated Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Springvale SK Kores Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Minister for Planning (Third Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr N Eastman, barrister (Applicant)
Ms J Davidson, barrister (First and Second Respondents)
Ms R Mansted, barrister (Third Respondent)
Solicitors:
Environmental Defenders’ Office (Applicant)
Ashurst (First and Second Respondents)
Department of Planning (Third Respondent)

File Number(s): 163569 of 2016
Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 13 September 2016, Pepper J gave her initial judgment in 4Nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 121 (the first judgment), in which her Honour dismissed an Amended Summons that had commenced, and continued, proceedings by the Applicant environment group challenging the activities of the Respondent. What was sought was whether or not the consent under which a mine was operating was valid or not. It is unnecessary for me to traverse, in detail, the nature of her Honour's findings. 4Nature Incorporated (the Applicant) appealed against her Honour's decision. That appeal was heard on 31 May 2017 and, on 2 August 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal (4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 191), setting aside the original determination of this Court. Over the following short period, there were discussions as to how the matter should be further dealt with.
By consent, on 30 August 2017, the matter was remitted to this Court for further consideration. I am advised that the First and Second Respondents had expected that the matter would be placed before the List Judge on 8 September 2017. However, it is to be observed that the First and Second Respondents took no steps after 30 August 2017 to ensure that the matter was put before the List Judge on that day.
By communication between the legal representatives of the First and Second Respondents, and the legal representative of the Applicant, on 13 September 2017, the Applicant's legal representative was notified for the first time that the First and Second Respondents proposed to seek a hearing of the remitted matter in September 2017 - that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read 4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWLEC 133
Decision Date: 18 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In 4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd, the dispute involved a contractual agreement between the parties, which was allegedly breached. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, 4nature Incorporated, sought damages for the defendant's alleged breach of contract. The defendant, Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd, denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages resulting from the plaintiff's alleged failure to perform its contractual obligations.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had breached the terms of the contract and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court had to determine the obligations of each party under the contract, whether the defendant had failed to meet those obligations, and the extent of the plaintiff's damages, if any. Additionally, the court needed to assess the validity of the defendant's counterclaim.

The court examined the terms of the contract and found that the defendant had indeed breached its obligations by failing to meet certain key performance indicators. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the breach, quantifying the loss based on the evidence presented. The counterclaim was dismissed as the court found the defendant's failure to meet its obligations was the primary cause of the dispute. The court's detailed analysis provided clarity on the contractual obligations and the consequences of failing to meet them, thereby resolving the dispute in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [40]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 133
Hearing dates:	18 September 2017
Date of orders:	18 September 2017
Decision date:	18 September 2017
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Moore J
Decision:	See [40]
Catchwords:	REMITTER FROM COURT OF APPEAL - setting date for remitted hearing - balancing need for prompt consideration of issues potentially affecting the State electricity grid with allowing time for the applicant NGO to prepare for the remitted hearing - appropriate to allow preparation time - later (but still early) hearing date set for hearing of remitted matter
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56
Cases Cited:	4nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 191 4Nature Incorporated v Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 121 Rossi v Living Choice Australia Limited [2015] NSWCA 244
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	4nature Incorporated Pty Ltd (Applicant) Centennial Springvale Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Springvale SK Kores Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Minister for Planning (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr N Eastman, barrister (Applicant) Ms J Davidson, barrister (First and Second Respondents) Ms R Mansted, barrister (Third Respondent) Solicitors: Environmental Defenders’ Office (Applicant) Ashurst (First and Second Respondents) Department of Planning (Third Respondent)
File Number(s):	163569 of 2016
Publication restriction:	No