The Eddie Arnott Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro

In the matter of The Eddie Arnott Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro, the primary dispute before the court involved the admissibility of an affidavit by Dr Imad Arnaout and the subsequent allowance for an additional affidavit from the applicant and second respondent. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over disputes relating to land acquisition and compensation under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW).

The court was tasked with determining whether the affidavit of Dr Imad Arnaout dated 18 February 2025 could be relied upon by either the applicant or the second respondent in their proceedings. Given that leave had not been granted under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the court considered the admissibility of this affidavit under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the applicant and second respondent could file an additional affidavit under s 61 of the CP Act, and if so, what restrictions should apply to its content.

The court ruled that the affidavit of Dr Imad Arnaout dated 18 February 2025 was inadmissible as leave had not been granted as required by r 35.9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. However, the court granted leave to the applicant and second respondent to file and serve an additional lay affidavit, provided it did not reference certain restricted content. The additional affidavit had to be no longer than 20 pages, and it could not refer to without prejudice communications, communications between the parties under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) that occurred prior to the commencement of the proceedings, or anything said or any admission made in a conciliation conference. The first respondent was then given a deadline to file any objections to the evidence, with the applicant and second respondent required to respond to these objections within a specified timeframe.