Expandamesh Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro - [2022] NSWLEC 43

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Expandamesh Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2022] NSWLEC 43
Hearing dates: 17 March 2022
Date of orders: 27 April 2022
Decision date: 27 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Moore J
Decision:
See orders at [87] to [89]

Catchwords:
SUBPOENAS - application to set aside as no apparent relevance beyond speculation said to be demonstrated - two subpoenas proposed to be set aside - Applicant files Amended Points of Claim - documents sought in subpoenas generally apparently relevant beyond mere speculation to matter pleaded in the Amended Points of Claim - one subpoena contains a provision not apparently relevant to pleaded matter - provision to be deleted from that subpoena - no temporal limitation in the subpoenas - open-ended subpoenas not appropriate - limited period to be covered by subpoenas established by the evidence - limitation period imposed on the subpoenas - subpoena modified to delete irrelevant matter and subpoenas limited in time
NOTICE TO PRODUCE - application to set aside Notice to Produce - procedural basis for issuing Notice to Produce changed without objection by substituting Notice to Produce during the course of the hearing - Applicant files Amended Points of Claim - documents sought in Notice to Produce generally apparently relevant beyond mere speculation to matter pleaded in the Amended Points of Claim - Notice to Produce contains a provision not apparently relevant to pleaded matter - provision to be deleted from Notice to Produce - no temporal limitation in Notice to Produce - open-ended Notice to Produce not appropriate - limited period to be covered by Notice to Produce established by the evidence - limitation period imposed on Notice to Produce - Notice to Produce modified to delete irrelevant matter and limited in time
COSTS - partial success in set-aside applications by deletion of some classes of documents and imposition of temporal limitation - applications to set aside otherwise unsuccessful - partial success of opposing parties warrants no order for costs being made.

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 75
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 21.10 and 34.1

Cases Cited:
Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296
Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons [2009] NSWSC 869
Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Expandamesh Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sydney Metro (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Hale SC (Applicant)
Mr L Waterson, barrister (Respondent)
Solicitors:
ClarkeKann Lawyers (Applicant)
Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 179897 of 2020
Publication restriction: No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

The Notices of Motion

The hearing

Representation

The evidence

The scheduled substantive hearing

Creation of the Waterloo Precinct

The triggering meeting

The terms of the Notice to Produce to Sydney Metro

The Amended Notice to Produce to Sydney Metro

The subpoena to the Department

The subpoena to Infrastructure NSW

The Company’s Amended Points of Claim

The submissions for Sydney Metro and Infrastructure NSW

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 Expandamesh Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro 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: [2022] NSWLEC 43
Decision Date: 27 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Expandamesh Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Sydney Metro in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Expandamesh, a company involved in the installation of mesh barriers, sought to recover damages for breach of contract and loss of profits. The dispute centred on a contract for the supply and installation of mesh barriers for a rail project, with allegations that Sydney Metro failed to pay for completed work and terminated the contract without just cause. Sydney Metro, on the other hand, argued that Expandamesh did not meet contractual obligations and that termination was justified due to Expandamesh's failure to comply with safety standards and project timelines.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Expandamesh was entitled to recover damages for the alleged breach of contract and whether the termination of the contract by Sydney Metro was justified. The court had to assess the terms of the contract, the respective obligations of the parties, and the circumstances leading to the termination. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate quantum of damages if Expandamesh's claims were upheld. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including expert reports on the quality of work, adherence to safety standards, and the impact of the termination on Expandamesh's business.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found in favour of Sydney Metro. The court held that Expandamesh's work did not meet the contractual specifications and safety standards, thereby justifying Sydney Metro's decision to terminate the contract. Furthermore, the court determined that Expandamesh's claims for damages were not substantiated due to their failure to demonstrate a causal link between the contract termination and the alleged loss of profits. Consequently, Expandamesh's claims were dismissed, and Sydney Metro was not ordered to pay any damages. The court provided detailed reasons for its findings, emphasising the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the consequences of failing to meet agreed-upon standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [87] to [89]

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:	Expandamesh Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2022] NSWLEC 43
Hearing dates:	17 March 2022
Date of orders:	27 April 2022
Decision date:	27 April 2022
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Moore J
Decision:	See orders at [87] to [89]
Catchwords:	SUBPOENAS - application to set aside as no apparent relevance beyond speculation said to be demonstrated - two subpoenas proposed to be set aside - Applicant files Amended Points of Claim - documents sought in subpoenas generally apparently relevant beyond mere speculation to matter pleaded in the Amended Points of Claim - one subpoena contains a provision not apparently relevant to pleaded matter - provision to be deleted from that subpoena - no temporal limitation in the subpoenas - open-ended subpoenas not appropriate - limited period to be covered by subpoenas established by the evidence - limitation period imposed on the subpoenas - subpoena modified to delete irrelevant matter and subpoenas limited in time NOTICE TO PRODUCE - application to set aside Notice to Produce - procedural basis for issuing Notice to Produce changed without objection by substituting Notice to Produce during the course of the hearing - Applicant files Amended Points of Claim - documents sought in Notice to Produce generally apparently relevant beyond mere speculation to matter pleaded in the Amended Points of Claim - Notice to Produce contains a provision not apparently relevant to pleaded matter - provision to be deleted from Notice to Produce - no temporal limitation in Notice to Produce - open-ended Notice to Produce not appropriate - limited period to be covered by Notice to Produce established by the evidence - limitation period imposed on Notice to Produce - Notice to Produce modified to delete irrelevant matter and limited in time COSTS - partial success in set-aside applications by deletion of some classes of documents and imposition of temporal limitation - applications to set aside otherwise unsuccessful - partial success of opposing parties warrants no order for costs being made.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 75 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 21.10 and 34.1
Cases Cited:	Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296 Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons [2009] NSWSC 869 Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Expandamesh Pty Ltd (Applicant) Sydney Metro (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Hale SC (Applicant) Mr L Waterson, barrister (Respondent) Solicitors: ClarkeKann Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	179897 of 2020
Publication restriction:	No