Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning

Shellharbour City Council applied for leave to appeal a decision of the primary judge concerning the admissibility of expert evidence. The dispute involved the interpretation of a statutory instrument, and the Council contended that the primary judge erred in not requiring directions under UCPR 31.19 for the expert evidence presented.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had made an error in failing to direct the parties to provide directions for the expert evidence, as contemplated by UCPR 31.19. This question turned on whether the expert evidence, which related to the technical meaning of words used in a statutory instrument, was of sufficient relevance to warrant such directions.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while UCPR 31.19 contemplates directions for expert evidence, such directions are not always mandatory, particularly where the expert evidence is of marginal relevance. The primary judge had considered the relevance of the expert evidence and concluded that directions were not necessary. The Court of Appeal found no error in this assessment, holding that in some circumstances, it is sufficient for a judge to state the propositions that the expert evidence is intended to establish, rather than requiring formal directions.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.