CSR Limited v Valuer General (No 2)

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	CSR Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1244
Hearing dates:	13 November 2013
Decision date:	24 December 2013
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Moore SC
Decision:	See text of judgment
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE: Late notice of material fact; application to vacate hearing dates; effect of agreement between the parties; evidence contrary to agreement; rejection of evidence
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	CSR Limited (Applicant) Valuer-General (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr P Clay SC (Applicant) Ms M Carpenter, barrister (Respondent) Gadens Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	31034 of 2012
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

Introduction

1. SENIOR COMMISSIONER: On 13 November, I dealt with two Notices of Motion in these proceedings, one filed by the applicant and the other filed by the respondent. I dealt with each of those Motions, both of them arising on a short notice basis, by giving a decision with respect to each but indicating that I would provide reasons for my rulings as a portion of the judgment in the subsequent substantive proceedings.

1. As it transpired, on the third day of the substantive proceedings, the parties handed up consent orders resolving the valuation that was in dispute between them and removing the necessity for adjudication and, hence, removing the necessity for a judgment that could have provided a vehicle for the reasons for the decisions on each of the procedural motions.

1. I subsequently caused an enquiry to be made of the parties to ask if they still wished me to provide reasons for my procedural decisions, indicating that if either party required written reasons I would publish them. As such a request has been made; these are the reasons for my determinations concerning the two motions. For convenience, although the two motions were distinctly different, this judgment constitutes a consolidated set of reasons - but reasons concerning each motion given separately.

The respondent's Motion

1. The motion that was moved by the respondent sought vacation of the hearing dates. This arose because of concerns about the late service of a statement of evidence by Mr Hubbard, the applicant's valuer, which statement had disclosed to the respondent, for what the respondent said was the first time, the existence of a mining lease over the land at Horsley Park that was the subject of the appeal. The respondent was concerned that there would not be sufficient time for the respondent's advisors to investigate and analyse the impact of that mining lease on relevant matters in dispute between the parties in the valuation appeal. This statement of evidence was filed and served on 8 November, the Friday that was a full working week prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing on Monday 18 November.

1. It is, at this point, appropriate to note that the site that was the subject of the valuation dispute was and remains a functioning brickworks and that the site has had conducted on it, for a considerable…