Help Save Mt Gilead Inc v Mount Gilead Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2018] NSWLEC 147

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Help Save Mt Gilead Inc v Mount Gilead Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 147
Hearing dates:	20 June 2018
Date of orders:	20 June 2018
Decision date:	20 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Moore J
Decision:	At [6]
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE - proposed expert report - proposed to rely on documents - report rejected - tender of documents rejected
Cases Cited:	Help Save Mt Gilead Inc v Mount Gilead Pty Limited [2018] NSWLEC 88
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Help Save Mt Gilead Inc (Applicant) Mount Gilead Pty Limited (First Respondent) Stefan & Anna Dzwonnik (Second Respondents) The Greater Sydney Commission (Third Respondent) The Minister for Planning (Fourth Respondent) Campbelltown City Council (Fifth Respondent) Lendlease Communities (Mt Gilead) Pty Limited (Sixth Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Robertson SC/Ms J Walker, barrister (Applicant) Ms Z Heger, barrister (First Respondent) Submitting appearance (Second Respondents) Ms I King, barrister (Third and Fourth Respondents) Submitting appearance (Fifth Respondent) Mr N Williams SC/Mr A Shearer, barrister (Sixth Respondent)   Solicitors: Connor & Co (Applicant) Addisons Lawyers (First Respondent) Carter Ferguson Solicitors (Second Respondents) Department of Planning (Third and Fourth Respondents) Marsdens Law Group (Fifth Respondent) Addisons Lawyers (Sixth Respondent)
File Number(s):	370175 of 2017
Publication restriction:	No

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: The position is that, on 7 June 2018, Molesworth AJ gave a decision in Help Save Mt Gilead Inc v Mount Gilead Pty Limited [2018] NSWLEC 88. During the course of that decision, his Honour rejected the proposed amendments to the pleadings that were advanced on behalf of the Applicant in seeking to rely on a draft Second Further Amended Summons. His Honour rejected all those amendments.

2. His Honour reserved the question of whether the material proposed to be known as the “Stephenson Report”, as referred to by his Honour in [40] of his Honour’s judgment. and noting that, to considerable extent, that document was to be redacted - that redaction having taken place and being reflected in the document behind Tab 8 of Exhibit D - should be admitted. His Honour expressly reserved to me, as the trial judge, the question of whether or not that report should be admitted.

3. Mr Shearer, counsel for the sixth respondent, has taken me to the matters that are contained in the pleadings as presently before me in [15] through to [21] of the Further Amended Summons.

4. To the extent that they raise matters of air quality (including those that potentially impact on ozone objectives), they are set out in [16] of the present pleadings and they rely, as set out in [18], on a peer review of air quality assessment that is dated 20 April 2009. To the extent that the Applicant organisation now seeks to rely on data from 2012, 2013 and 2014 that is contained behind Tabs 9, 10 and 11 of Exhibit D, they cannot be permitted to be relied upon as they cannot have formed part of the foundation of the peer review of air quality assessment referred to in [18] of the pleadings.

5. To the extent that there are matters, in the peer review, that might potentially be capable of causing me to draw an inference about future trends in air quality in the area, those are matters to which I can be taken.

6. However, I reject the Stephenson report and I reject the documents behind Tabs 9 10 and 11 of Exhibit D.

**********