Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gray and Anor v Macquarie Generation (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 3 Hearing dates: 5 August 2010 Decision date: 01 February 2011 Before: Pain J Decision: Determination that applicants should be granted leave to amend their claim, subject to the provision of further particulars
Catchwords: PROCEDURE:- whether leave to amend pleading ought be granted - whether abuse of process and/or issue estoppel seeking to rely on amended pleading - whether cause of action disclosed - whether particulars embarrassing Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 56, s 57, s 58, s 64(1), s 64(2), s 98
Clean Air Act 1961 s 16
Energy Services Corporation Act 1995
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39(2)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 16(1), s 16(1A), s 20(1), s 20(2), s 20(3)
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 r 4.2(1)
Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 3, s 45, s 63, s 64, s 115(1), s 115(2), s 252, s 322, Ch 3, Pt 8.4
State Pollution Control Commission Act 1970 s 17K
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 13 r 13.4, Pt 14 r 14.28, Pt 42 r 42.1Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2001) 201 CLR 552
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001
Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWCA 338; (2008) 73 NSWLR 196
Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2010] HCA 3; (2010) 240 CLR 242
Blair & Perpetual Trustee Co v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Director-General, Department of Land and Water Conservation v Bailey [2003] NSWCA 361; (2003) 136 LGERA 242
Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878) 3 App Cas 430
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gray v Macquarie Generation [2010] NSWLEC 34
Gray v Macquarie Generation (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 82
Gunns Ltd v Marr [2005] VSC 251
Harrison v Melhem [2008] NSWCA 67; (2008) 72 NSWLR 380
Kuligowski v MetroBus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363
Leerdam v Noori [2009] NSWCA 90; (2009) 255 ALR 553
Malika Holdings Pty Ltd v Stretton [2001] HCA 14; (2001) 204 CLR 290
Meckiff v Simpson [1968] VR 69
Murphy v Abi-Saab (1995) 37 CLR 280
National Parks & Wildlife Service v Stables Perisher Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 573
Neighbourhood Association DP 285121 v Murray Shire Council [2001] NSWLEC 247; (2001) 117 LGERA 95
Potter v Minahan [1908] HCA 63; (1908) 7 CLR 277
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665
R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 281; (2005) 64 NSWLR 10
Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [1983] 2 AC 509
Van Son v Forestry Commission of New South Wales (1995) 86 LGERA 108
Continue reading Gray v Macquarie Generation (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Gray v Macquarie Generation (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 3
- Case
- [2011] NSWLEC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved the applicants, Gray, against the respondent, Macquarie Generation. The applicants sought to amend their claim, which was initially dismissed for want of prosecution. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants argued that they should be allowed to amend their claim as they had shown sufficient grounds to warrant an amendment. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had not provided sufficient justification for the amendment.
The court was required to determine whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an amendment to their claim, and whether the delay in seeking to amend the claim was justified. The court considered the relevant legal principles, including the factors that a court may take into account when deciding whether to grant leave to amend a claim. The court also considered the circumstances of the case, including the nature and extent of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prospects of success of the proposed amendment.
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an amendment to their claim, and that the delay in seeking to amend the claim was justified. The court noted that the applicants had provided a detailed explanation for the delay, and had demonstrated that the proposed amendment had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also found that the applicants had acted promptly in seeking to amend their claim once they became aware of the need to do so. The court held that the applicants should be granted leave to amend their claim, subject to the provision of further particulars.
The final orders of the court were that the applicants should be granted leave to amend their claim, subject to the provision of further particulars. The court noted that the applicants had provided sufficient grounds for the amendment, and that the delay in seeking to amend the claim was justified. The court also noted that the applicants had demonstrated that the proposed amendment had a reasonable prospect of success. The court ordered that the applicants provide further particulars within a specified time frame, and that the respondent be given an opportunity to respond to the amended claim.
The court was required to determine whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an amendment to their claim, and whether the delay in seeking to amend the claim was justified. The court considered the relevant legal principles, including the factors that a court may take into account when deciding whether to grant leave to amend a claim. The court also considered the circumstances of the case, including the nature and extent of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prospects of success of the proposed amendment.
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an amendment to their claim, and that the delay in seeking to amend the claim was justified. The court noted that the applicants had provided a detailed explanation for the delay, and had demonstrated that the proposed amendment had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also found that the applicants had acted promptly in seeking to amend their claim once they became aware of the need to do so. The court held that the applicants should be granted leave to amend their claim, subject to the provision of further particulars.
The final orders of the court were that the applicants should be granted leave to amend their claim, subject to the provision of further particulars. The court noted that the applicants had provided sufficient grounds for the amendment, and that the delay in seeking to amend the claim was justified. The court also noted that the applicants had demonstrated that the proposed amendment had a reasonable prospect of success. The court ordered that the applicants provide further particulars within a specified time frame, and that the respondent be given an opportunity to respond to the amended claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Determination that applicants should be granted leave to amend their claim, subject to the provision of further particulars
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.