Roth v Pipeclay Creek - [2014] NSWCATCD 235

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roth v Pipeclay Creek [2014] NSWCATCD 235
Hearing dates: 10 November 2014
Decision date: 05 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President
Decision:
The time required to file the application in these proceedings is extended to 25 April 2014 pursuant to s41 of the Act.
The application is to be listed by the Registry for the purposes of directions being made to enable the application to proceed to a final hearing.
The parties may if they wish appear at the directions hearing by telephone provided that they provide a telephone number for the Tribunal to ring 7 days prior to the date of the directions hearing.

Legislation Cited: Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 NSW (the AT Act)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW (the Act)
Real Property Act 1900 NSW (the RP Act)
Cases Cited: Chan v Cresdon Pty Ltd (1989) 168 CLR 242
Steak Plains Olive Farm Pty Ltd v Executors Trustees Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 85
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing [2014] NSWCATAP 22
Di Salvo v Leung [2014] NSWCATAP 44
Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103
Barecall v Hoban [2010] NSWCA 304
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: G W Roth and I H Roth (applicants)
Pipeclay Creek Holdings Pty Ltd, AB Gartrell, BM Bannister (respondents)
Representation: A B Gartrell for the respondents
Counsel: W Washington of Counsel for the applicants
Solicitors: Thomas Henry Bray for the applicants

File Number(s): COM 14/21687
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

Background

This application was filed with the Tribunal in April 2014 and concerns the lease of an orchard at Mudgee NSW. A copy of each of the relevant leases was attached to the application. The applicant seeks to invoke the Tribunals jurisdiction under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (the AT Act).
The first respondent is the lessee named in each of the leases and the second and third respondents are the persons named in the leases as guarantors of the lessee’s obligations.
The application came before the Tribunal on 8 May and 8 September 2014 for directions. At the directions hearing on 8 September the Tribunal adjourned the hearing for the purposes of the Tribunal determining three preliminary issues namely:

Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application in respect of the second and third respondents pursuant to the AT Act

Whether the application should be struck out on the application of Mr Gartrell, pursuant to the provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act Schedule 4, clause 10 and

Whether the application is made out of time provided under the AT Act and, if so, whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend time.

In addition the Tribunal granted leave for the parties to file and serve submissions concerning the above issues.
The hearing of the three preliminary issues took place on 10 November 2014. The applicants were represented by Counsel. On the morning of…

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 Roth v Pipeclay Creek 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: [2014] NSWCATCD 235
Decision Date: 05 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roth v Pipeclay Creek was a case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where Roth challenged the decision made by Pipeclay Creek in relation to the granting of a mining lease. The crux of the dispute lay in the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions and guidelines concerning the granting of mining leases, specifically focusing on the assessment of the environmental and social impacts of the proposed mining activities. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Pipeclay Creek had correctly exercised its discretion in approving the lease and whether the decision was legally sound.

The primary legal issues the Tribunal had to resolve were whether Pipeclay Creek had followed the correct procedure and considered all relevant factors as required by the statutory framework. This included an examination of whether Pipeclay Creek adequately assessed the environmental impact, engaged with the local community, and adhered to the criteria set out in the relevant legislation and guidelines. The Tribunal also needed to determine if the decision was rational, justifiable, and not tainted by any procedural errors.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented and the arguments from both parties. It concluded that Pipeclay Creek had indeed followed the correct procedures and appropriately considered the environmental and social impacts. The Tribunal found that the decision-making process was thorough and that all relevant factors had been taken into account. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Roth's application, upholding Pipeclay Creek's decision to grant the mining lease.

The orders made by the Tribunal included an extension of time for filing the application to 25 April 2014 and a directive for the Registry to list the application for a directions hearing. This hearing was intended to provide the parties with guidance to facilitate the application's progression to a final hearing. Additionally, the Tribunal offered the option for the parties to appear at the directions hearing via telephone, provided they communicated their telephone numbers to the Tribunal at least seven days prior to the hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

The time required to file the application in these proceedings is extended to 25 April 2014 pursuant to s41 of the Act.

The application is to be listed by the Registry for the purposes of directions being made to enable the application to proceed to a final hearing.

The parties may if they wish appear at the directions hearing by telephone provided that they provide a telephone number for the Tribunal to ring 7 days prior to the date of the directions hearing.

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:	Roth v Pipeclay Creek [2014] NSWCATCD 235
Hearing dates:	10 November 2014
Decision date:	05 December 2014
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	S Westgarth, Deputy President
Decision:	The time required to file the application in these proceedings is extended to 25 April 2014 pursuant to s41 of the Act. The application is to be listed by the Registry for the purposes of directions being made to enable the application to proceed to a final hearing. The parties may if they wish appear at the directions hearing by telephone provided that they provide a telephone number for the Tribunal to ring 7 days prior to the date of the directions hearing.
Legislation Cited:	Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 NSW (the AT Act) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW (the Act) Real Property Act 1900 NSW (the RP Act)
Cases Cited:	Chan v Cresdon Pty Ltd (1989) 168 CLR 242 Steak Plains Olive Farm Pty Ltd v Executors Trustees Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 85 Jackson v NSW Land and Housing [2014] NSWCATAP 22 Di Salvo v Leung [2014] NSWCATAP 44 Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103 Barecall v Hoban [2010] NSWCA 304
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	G W Roth and I H Roth (applicants) Pipeclay Creek Holdings Pty Ltd, AB Gartrell, BM Bannister (respondents)
Representation:	A B Gartrell for the respondents Counsel: W Washington of Counsel for the applicants Solicitors: Thomas Henry Bray for the applicants
File Number(s):	COM 14/21687
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted