Mina Suh v Liverpool City Council and Casula Community Group for Responsible Planning Inc

Case •

[2016] NSWLEC 1177

•

13 May 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Mina Suh v Liverpool City Council and Casula Community Group for Responsible Planning Inc [2016] NSWLEC 1177
Hearing dates:13 May 2016
Date of orders: 13 May 2016
Decision date: 13 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

1. The expert witnesses on social impacts are to confer and produce a joint report by 14 June 2016.
2. The hearing is to commence on Monday 16 May 2016 on site for the purpose of taking a view and hearing from objectors and returning to Court in order to deal with any matter not related to expert evidence on social impact.
3. The hearing date on 17 May 2016 is vacated.
4. The hearing will re-commence on 25 July 2016 for the purposes of hearing the expert witnesses on social impact and final submissions.

Catchwords: NOTICE OF MOTION: vacation of hearing date.
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mina Suh (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Casula Community Group for Responsible Planning Inc (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M. Sonter solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M. Staunton barrister (Respondent)
Mr M. Seymour barrister (Second Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
University of Newcastle Legal Centre (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):11174 of 2015

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The notice of motion filed on 12 May 2016 by the second respondent seeks to vacate hearing dates for the matter on Monday 16 May and Tuesday 17 May 2016. The notice of motion is supported by the affidavit of Jacquie Svenson 12 May 2016. The second respondent handed up short minutes of order.

  2. The Applicant opposes the orders sought by the second respondent and read the Affidavit of Matt Sonter dated 13 May 2016.

  3. The first respondent consents to the orders sought.

Summary of submissions

  1. Mr Seymour submits that the social planning joint report was to be served on 2 May 2016 according to the timetable agreed by the parties. On 10 May 2016, the applicant disclosed a second social planning expert and circulated individual reports. On 11 May 2016 the second respondent served an individual report, on the misunderstanding that this was an appropriate response to the individual reports provided by the applicant’s experts. On 12 May, 2016, Mr Miller for the second respondent provided his additions to the joint report and signed the report.

  2. According to the affidavit of Jacquie Svenson, Professor Miller said during a telephone call at 4.30pm on 11 May 2016 that he had received ‘large amounts of material’ from the applicant’s expert throughout the day including a list of 20 or so old references that he needed to check and he would not have time to do so before the joint report was to be filed by 12 May 2016.

  3. Mr Sonter submits that there has been a delay in the finalisation of the social planning joint report and the delay has been caused by Professor Kypri, an expert engaged by the second respondent, as he is unavailable to finalise the joint report because of a personal medical emergency. Mr Sonter submits that the other social planning experts have finalised their respective sections of the joint report and signed the report.

  4. Mr Seamour submits that Mr Miller has not finalised his section of the joint report.

  5. Mr Sonter confirmed that the applicant intended to rely on the material sent by the applicant’s social planning expert to the other social planning experts by email on 11 May 2016.

Decision

  1. As the applicant intends to rely on the material sent by their social planning expert to the social planning experts for the second respondent on 11 May 2016, procedural fairness dictates that I adjourn the second day of the hearing to allow the respondent and second respondent’s social planning experts an opportunity to digest and respond to that material. To do otherwise would self-evidently be unfair to both respondents.

  2. I am satisfied the orders proposed by the second respondent in the short minutes of order handed up during the hearing of the notice of motion are appropriate and so I make those orders:

Orders

  1. The orders of the Court are:

  1. The expert witnesses on social impacts are to confer and produce a joint report by 14 June 2016.

  2. The hearing is to commence on Monday 16 May 2016 on site for the purpose of taking a view and hearing from objectors and returning to Court in order to deal with any matter not related to expert evidence on social impact.

  3. The hearing date on 17 May 2016 is vacated.

  4. The hearing will re-commence on 25 July 2016 for the purposes of hearing the expert witnesses on social impact and final submissions.

_____________________

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Amendments

17 May 2016 - Typographical error corrected in 'Case title' on the cover sheet.

Decision last updated: 17 May 2016

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0