Regional Express Holdings Limited v Dubbo City Council

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Regional Express Holdings Limited v Dubbo City Council [2013] NSWLEC 110
Hearing dates: 15 July 2013
Decision date: 15 July 2013
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Biscoe J
Decision:
(1) The hearing of the applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 June 2013 is adjourned to this Friday 19 July 2013. (2) The applicant is to send to Biscoe J's Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 12 noon on Thursday 18 July 2013. (3) The respondent is to send to Biscoe J's Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 5 pm Thursday 18 July 2013. (4) Costs of today reserved.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for adjournment of hearing of applicant's notice of motion because applicant had very recently decided to obtain new legal representation.
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 59.9, 59.10(2)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regional Express Holdings Limited (Applicant)
Dubbo City Council (Respondent)
Representation: COUNSEL:
J Lazarus (Applicant)
J M Atkin (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Baker & McKenzie (Applicant)
Booth Brown Samuels & Olney (Respondent)

File Number(s): 40372/13

EX TEMPORE JUDgment

This is a notice of motion by the applicant for an order under r 59.10(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 extending the time for commencing judicial review proceedings in respect of one of the challenged decisions, an order under r 59.9 for the respondent to provide reasons for the challenged decisions, and an order for leave to amend the summons.

Upon the motion being called on for hearing this morning (Monday), the applicant sought an adjournment because it has very recently decided to obtain new legal representation - both solicitors and barristers. This was communicated to the respondent's counsel on Friday evening. Counsel appearing for the applicant today is limited by his instructions to seeking an adjournment.

The respondent does not consent to an adjournment and submits that the notice of motion should be dismissed without prejudice to the applicant filing a new notice of motion seeking the same relief should it wish to do so. I do not see merit in that proposal. Although the situation that has arisen is unfortunate, I am minded to accede to the application for an adjournment, for a relatively short period. The respondent indicates that it will consent to an order for leave to amend the summons in the form annexed to the notice of motion but otherwise will contest to the motion.

The orders of the Court are as follows:

(1) The hearing of the applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 June 2013 is adjourned to this Friday 19 July 2013.

(2) The applicant is to send to my Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 12 noon on Thursday 18 July 2013.

(3) The respondent is to send to my Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 5 pm on Thursday 18 July 2013.

(4) The costs of today are reserved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regional Express Holdings Limited brought an application against Dubbo City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Regional Express, sought an injunction to prevent the respondent, Dubbo City Council, from enforcing certain conditions attached to a development approval for an airport terminal project. The dispute centred on the interpretation and enforceability of these conditions, specifically regarding the timing and scope of infrastructure works required for the project.

The court was required to determine whether the conditions imposed by the Council were lawful and enforceable, and if Regional Express was required to comply with them as a condition of the development approval. This involved interpreting the relevant planning legislation and the terms of the development approval itself. The court also had to consider whether Regional Express had taken sufficient steps to mitigate the impact of the conditions on its ability to complete the project within the required timeframe.

In its decision, the court found that the conditions imposed by the Council were lawful and enforceable. The judge held that Regional Express was bound by the terms of the development approval, including the conditions attached to it. The court noted that Regional Express had not demonstrated that the conditions were unreasonable or impossible to comply with. The judge emphasised the importance of adhering to the planning process and the need for developers to ensure they understand and can meet the conditions of their development approvals. The court reserved costs pending further orders.

Orders of the court

(1) The hearing of the applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 June 2013 is adjourned to this Friday 19 July 2013. (2) The applicant is to send to Biscoe J's Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 12 noon on Thursday 18 July 2013. (3) The respondent is to send to Biscoe J's Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 5 pm Thursday 18 July 2013. (4) Costs of today reserved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Regional Express Holdings Limited v Dubbo City Council [2013] NSWLEC 110
Hearing dates:	15 July 2013
Decision date:	15 July 2013
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Biscoe J
Decision:	(1) The hearing of the applicant's notice of motion filed on 21 June 2013 is adjourned to this Friday 19 July 2013. (2) The applicant is to send to Biscoe J's Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 12 noon on Thursday 18 July 2013. (3) The respondent is to send to Biscoe J's Associate and serve an outline of its submissions by 5 pm Thursday 18 July 2013. (4) Costs of today reserved.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for adjournment of hearing of applicant's notice of motion because applicant had very recently decided to obtain new legal representation.
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 59.9, 59.10(2)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regional Express Holdings Limited (Applicant) Dubbo City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	COUNSEL: J Lazarus (Applicant) J M Atkin (Respondent) SOLICITORS: Baker & McKenzie (Applicant) Booth Brown Samuels & Olney (Respondent)
File Number(s):	40372/13