Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

[2003] NSWLEC 36

>

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 36

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Sutherland Shire Council

OBJECTOR
Colonial First State Property Limited

FILE NUMBER(S):

10248 of 2001

CORAM:

Cowdroy J

KEY ISSUES:

Practice and Procedure :- Objector - extent of leave to objector to cross-examine witnesses

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING:

07/03/2002

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

03/07/2002

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr M. Tobias QC

SOLICITORS
Landerer & Co

RESPONDENT
Mr G. A. Green (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS
Pike Pike & Fenwick

OBJECTOR
Mr M Wright QC

SOLICITORS
Mallesons Stephen Jaques

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

10248 of 2001

Cowdroy J.

7 March 2002

TERRACE TOWER HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

Applicant
v

SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent

COLONIAL FIRST STATE PROPERTY LIMITED

Objector

Judgment

1. The parties have sought clarification of the Court’s orders which were made on 5 March 2002. One of the difficulties arising is that the Court, not having heard any evidence in the proceedings, has been required to speculate upon the future evidence and the appropriate course for the conduct of these proceedings.

2. Having heard Mr Wright QC, Mr Tobias QC and Mr Green this morning concerning the ambit of cross-examination which is to be allowed by Colonial First State Property Limited (“the objector”), the Court considers that the appropriate orders to be made are those which will reflect the interest of the objector in these proceedings.

3. It would be inappropriate to permit the objector a broad ranging cross-examination on all economic issues and on car parking issues where the interests of the objector are not concerned. In respect of such issues the Court considers that the appropriate contradictor in the case is the council. The council bears the responsibility of guarding the interests of its planning requirements within its shire.

4. The objector will be allowed to cross-examine on the issue of the sufficiency of car parking insofar as it impacts upon its development at Caringbah.

5. In relation to the economic issues, the Court will require the objector to identify the precise economic impact which is alleged to affect its development, namely the Caringbah Centre. Cross-examination in relation to economic impact will be confined to that issue, namely the economic impact of the proposed development on the Caringbah Centre. The objector will not be permitted to participate in a broad ranging inquiry into economic issues.

6. If there are other issues beyond those which affect the Caringbah Centre, then they are clearly the responsibility of council.

WRIGHT: And on an opening your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: I must confess the Commissioner and I did not consider the question of opening, but I would have thought an opening is not required except for a brief outline of the matters which are sought to be adduced, confined again to the issues which affect the Caringbah Centre.