Keith Harold McNamara v Parry Shire Council

[1988] NSWLEC 116

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Keith Harold McNamara v. Parry Shire Council [1988] NSWLEC 116

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Keith Harold McNamara

FIRST RESPONDENT
Parry Shire Coucil

SECOND RESPONDENT
C.J. and D.E. Refalo

FILE NUMBER(S):

10526 of 1987

CORAM:

Hemmings J

KEY ISSUES:

:-

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

19/04/1988

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

04/19/1988

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

JUDGMENT:

HIS HONOUR: In this matter, at the conclusion of the objector's case an application is made by the first and second respondents for an adjournment of the proceedings.

The application is based upon a claimed inability to deal with expert evidence said to be raised for the first time in expert evidence called by the objector. I have already noted in these proceedings the most disturbing fact that in a complicated matter such as the subject appeal, no experts' reports were exchanged by the parties prior to the hearing.

I will not, in this application, seek to assign the fault of the failure of the parties to exchange reports, but because that was not done this case, which was listed for five days, has now gone for ten days. As a consequence thereof the Court has not had the benefit of full and frank consideration of each of the issues by all of the experts.

I note also that interlocutory proceedings seeking particulars were unsuccessful, which might have resolved what were the true matters in dispute between the parties. The objector's experts now not only challenge the standards applied by the experts called on behalf of the respondents, but also challenge their expertise in particular fields.

The matters now in dispute raise serious matters and I am satisfied that not only are the respondents prejudiced in the way in which they can deal with those matters, but more importantly I do not feel that the Court is in a position to deal properly with these matters of expert evidence without an opportunity for the respondents' experts to give proper consideration to that material.

For that reason, i.e. not merely inconvenience to the parties, but to put the Court in a better position to deal with the expert evidence, I reluctantly conclude that the only course I have is to grant the adjournment as sought, and I do so.

I will not fix a time for the resumption of the hearing. I grant leave to the parties to approach my associate in order to obtain a date for hearing. It will probably mean vacating other fixtures and further inconvenience to parties in other matters, and I therefore ask the parties to make a serious attempt to determine how much time the further hearing of the matter is likely to take, so that there is no further disruption to the Court's proceedings.