Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

[2003] NSWLEC 374

>

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] NSWLEC 374

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Anthony Phillip Maurici

RESPONDENT
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

FILE NUMBER(S):

30039 of 1999

CORAM:

Nott C

KEY ISSUES:

Valuation of Land :- Application for adjournment and new directions

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

12 November 2003

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

11/12/2003

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr M Leeming, barrister
SOLICITORS
Speed & Stacey

RESPONDENT
Mr B Maston, barrister
SOLICITOR
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

30039 of 1999

Nott C

12 November 2003

A P Maurici
Applicant
v

Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
Respondent
Judgment – on application for adjournment



1 An application has been made today on behalf of the applicant that the proceedings be adjourned for a period of about four to five weeks at which future time further directions for the filing and serving of evidence could be given. Alternatively, the applicant has requested that evidence-in-chief on behalf of the applicant be permitted to be filed and served by the end of February 2004.

2 The application is neither opposed nor consented to by the respondent. However, the respondent submits that a period of one month should be fixed for the filing and serving of the applicant’s evidence; and, since the respondent has filed and served all its evidence, there would be no need for evidence in reply from the applicant, but the respondent ought to be given 21 days to respond to the envisaged evidence of the applicant.

3 It is unsatisfactory that the previous directions have not been complied with. After the conclusion of the High Court case in February this year, the matter came before the Registrar and then was listed before me on 11 April 2003, when I discussed at length with the representatives of the parties various options for the preparation of the further hearing before me. These options were set out in a written document that I read to the parties and which is recorded in the transcript of the proceedings on 11 April 2003. The parties then agreed upon a suitable timetable which I endorsed and made directions concerning. There was a failure by the parties to meet the timetable that was set out in the directions given on 11 April 2003, although quite ample time was given to the parties in my view for the production of further evidence.

4 On 11 August 2003, the matter was again mentioned before me and after hearing from the parties, I then made certain directions by consent. I directed:

(1) Evidence-in-chief of both parties to be filed and served within eight weeks of 11 August 2003.
(2) Any evidence in reply to be filed and served within four weeks thereafter.


5 I adjourned the proceedings to the Registrar’s call over on 12 November 2003 for any further directions and for setting the appeal down for hearing before myself.

6 I am now told all the evidence of the respondent has been filed, and I note that on the file there is a substantial supplementary valuation report by Mr Croker and a report of quantity surveyor, Mr D Martin. These reports were filed late, on 3 November 2003.

7 I have taken into account the matters put to me by Mr M Leeming of counsel on behalf of the applicant, and I have taken into account the affidavit of Hugh Robert Scott sworn 12 November 2003.

8 I am not prepared to accede to the making of the directions that were requested on behalf of the applicant. Already ample time it seems has been granted.

9 I propose to make a further direction, however, that all further expert evidence of the applicant be filed and served on or before 30 January 2004. I also direct that the respondent shall file and serve any evidence in reply within 21 days after 30 January 2004. Accordingly, I make those two directions.

10 I should also say that I considered referring this matter to the Chief Judge because of the non-compliance with the previous directions of the Court. If there is further non-compliance, then the matter will be referred to the Chief Judge.

11 There is always the possibility that this matter would be dismissed for the failure to comply with the directions of the Court, if the failure is as a result of the applicant not meeting the new timetable (in view of the lengthy periods that were previously allowed but were not complied with). It seems to me also that if there is a non-compliance on behalf of the respondent, that non-compliance also could warrant a referral immediately to the Chief Judge.

_____________
A J Nott
Commissioner of the Court