Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure

Botany Bay City Council appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge who had refused the Council leave to rely on expert evidence in judicial review proceedings. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure was the respondent. The dispute concerned the admissibility of expert evidence sought to be introduced by the Council.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant the Council leave to rely upon expert evidence, and whether the primary judge's reasons for that refusal were inadequate. Specifically, the Court considered whether the expert evidence was "reasonably required" to resolve the proceedings, as stipulated by rule 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in refusing leave. The Court reasoned that the expert evidence was not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, as the issues before the court were primarily questions of law and interpretation of planning instruments, rather than factual disputes requiring expert opinion. The Court also found that the primary judge's reasons for refusing leave were adequate.

Leave to appeal was refused, with costs awarded to the respondent.