Jacfin Pty Ltd v TransGrid - [2013] NSWLEC 180

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jacfin Pty Ltd v TransGrid [2013] NSWLEC 180
Hearing dates: 16, 17 October 2013
Decision date: 17 October 2013
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Craig J
Decision:
1. The respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 2 October 2013 is dismissed.
2. The respondent must pay the applicant's costs of that Motion.
3. The exhibits, all being documents filed in the proceedings, will be retained on file.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - motion seeking order for production of documents - objection to compensation offered following compulsory acquisition of land - issue between planning experts as to highest and best use of land - document relevant only to credibility of witness not to be the subject of an order for production - documents passing between consultants and client did not meet threshold test of relevance to a fact in issue - documents not relevant to 'disregard' under s 56(1) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991 - prematurity in issuing notice to produce before all evidence served and joint experts' reports prepared - motion dismissed
Legislation Cited: Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW)
Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Agricultural Equity Investments Pty Ltd v Westlime Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 122
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Jacfin Pty Limited (Applicant)
TransGrid (Respondent)
Representation: R P L Lancaster SC (Applicant)
M J Astill (Respondent)
Jones Day (Applicant)
Ashurst Australia Solicitors (Respondent)

File Number(s): 30312 of 2013

ex tempore Judgment

TransGrid acquired land of Jacfin Pty Limited (Jacfin) by compulsory process under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Compensation Act) for the purposes of the Electricity Supply Act 1995. Jacfin commenced these proceedings seeking to have determined the compensation payable to it consequent upon the acquisition of its land. The proceedings have not yet been fixed for hearing.

TransGrid applies by motion seeking an order for production and inspection of documents sought by it from Jacfin in a notice to produce. That order is opposed by Jacfin on grounds, expressed at a level of generality, that the documents sought will not and are not likely to materially assist in respect of any issue in the proceedings; there is a lack of specificity in the documents sought and, even if, contrary to its primary position, there is relevance in the documents sought, that relevance is so marginal that a requirement to produce the documents is outweighed by the inconvenience and expense of requiring production.

The Notice to Produce

The primary order sought by TransGrid is for production by Jacfin of a category of documents. That category of documents was originally described in a Notice to Produce dated 5 June 2013. The Notice required production of documents by 20 June 2013.

The description of documents required was amended by letter from TransGrid's solicitors dated 3 July 2013. The amendment then…

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 Jacfin Pty Ltd v TransGrid 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: [2013] NSWLEC 180
Decision Date: 17 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jacfin Pty Ltd v TransGrid, the applicant, Jacfin, sought an injunction against the respondent, TransGrid, to prevent the latter from completing a project. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Jacfin alleged that the completion of the project would cause significant environmental harm and that TransGrid had failed to properly assess the environmental impact. TransGrid argued that it had undertaken a comprehensive assessment and that the project would not cause significant environmental harm.

The court was required to decide whether TransGrid had adequately assessed the environmental impact of the project and whether Jacfin had a sufficient likelihood of success in proving that the project would cause significant environmental harm to justify the grant of an injunction. The court considered the evidence provided by both parties, including expert reports on the potential environmental impact of the project. The court also considered the statutory framework governing environmental impact assessments and the principles of equity.

The court found that TransGrid had adequately assessed the environmental impact of the project and that Jacfin had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in proving that the project would cause significant environmental harm. The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court also held that the respondent's Notice of Motion to strike out certain parts of the applicant's statement of claim was well-founded, but that the applicant's claims were not so lacking in merit as to warrant the striking out of the entire statement of claim. The court ordered that the respondent's Notice of Motion be dismissed, that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the Motion, and that the exhibits be retained on file.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 2 October 2013 is dismissed.

2. The respondent must pay the applicant's costs of that Motion.

3. The exhibits, all being documents filed in the proceedings, will be retained on file.

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:	Jacfin Pty Ltd v TransGrid [2013] NSWLEC 180
Hearing dates:	16, 17 October 2013
Decision date:	17 October 2013
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	1. The respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 2 October 2013 is dismissed. 2. The respondent must pay the applicant's costs of that Motion. 3. The exhibits, all being documents filed in the proceedings, will be retained on file.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - motion seeking order for production of documents - objection to compensation offered following compulsory acquisition of land - issue between planning experts as to highest and best use of land - document relevant only to credibility of witness not to be the subject of an order for production - documents passing between consultants and client did not meet threshold test of relevance to a fact in issue - documents not relevant to 'disregard' under s 56(1) of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991 - prematurity in issuing notice to produce before all evidence served and joint experts' reports prepared - motion dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited:	Agricultural Equity Investments Pty Ltd v Westlime Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 122
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Jacfin Pty Limited (Applicant) TransGrid (Respondent)
Representation:	R P L Lancaster SC (Applicant) M J Astill (Respondent) Jones Day (Applicant) Ashurst Australia Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30312 of 2013