Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter - [2011] NSWLEC 122

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter [2011] NSWLEC 122
Hearing dates: 12/07/2011
Decision date: 12 July 2011
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Pepper J
Decision:
Expedition granted and expedited timetable ordered

Catchwords: PROCEDURE: whether expedition should be granted - party seeking expedition delayed in filing proceedings and delayed in seeking expedition - if expedition not granted then development consent would lapse - prejudice to the party opposing an order for expedition not insurmountable
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 ss 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
Conveyancing Act 1919 s 88K
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 40
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 2.1, 51.60
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Greetings Oxford Koala Hotel Pty Ltd v Oxford Square Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 33
Vaughan v Dawson [2005] NSWSC 33
Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1167
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Wren Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Laurence Brian Hunter (First Respondent)
Anne Maree Hunter (Second Respondent)
Representation: Mr S Patterson, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M Byrnes, solicitor (Respondents)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)
Russell C Byrnes Solicitor (Respondents)

File Number(s): 30529 of 2011

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Introduction

This is an application filed by Wren Investments Pty Ltd ("Wren") on 1 July 2011 for expedition of Class 3 proceedings (filed on 20 June 2011), together with consequential timetabling orders.

The application is opposed by the respondents, Mr Laurence Hunter and Ms Anne Hunter ("the Hunters").

In support of the application Wren relied on an affidavit of Mr Bruce Wren sworn 1 July 2011. Mr Wren is a director of Wren.

The respondents relied on an affidavit of Mr Russell Byrnes sworn 11 July 2011. Mr Byrnes is the solicitor acting on behalf of the Hunters. He was instructed to act in the matter on 4 July 2011.

For the reasons given below I have determined, albeit reluctantly, that expedition should be granted.

Procedural History Giving Rise to the Application for Expedition

Wren is the owner of land described as 401A-403 Mowbray Road, Chatswood ("the land").

Wren originally sought an easement from the Hunters in 2002, but this was rejected.

In 2006 Wren submitted a development application to Willoughby City Council ("the council") for the demolition of two existing dwellings on the land and the construction of residential housing for aged persons or persons with a disability.

The council refused the development application and a subsequent Class 1 appeal was commenced in this Court. The matter was heard before Brown C who upheld the appeal on 23 August 2006, subject to conditions of consent ("the consent"). One of these conditions was a deferred commencement condition which stated the following:

Engineering Requirements

The proposal must meet with the following engineering requirements:

(1) Documentary Evidence of Drainage Easement

The Applicant shall obtain and…

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 Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter 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: [2011] NSWLEC 122
Decision Date: 12 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Wren Investments Pty Ltd, brought an action against Hunter, seeking expedited proceedings in relation to a commercial dispute. The central issue was whether the court should grant an expedition of the hearing and order an expedited timetable given the urgency and complexity of the matter at hand.

The legal issues before the court were whether the circumstances of the case justified the granting of an expedition and whether an expedited timetable was appropriate. The plaintiff argued that the case involved significant commercial interests and required prompt resolution due to potential financial implications and the preservation of assets. The defendant, Hunter, opposed the application, contending that there was no compelling reason to expedite the proceedings and that the standard timetable would be sufficient.

The court considered the urgency and complexity of the case, the potential impact on the parties, and the public interest in efficient judicial processes. The Supreme Court determined that the circumstances did warrant an expedition of the proceedings and ordered an expedited timetable. The court found that the plaintiff's arguments regarding the significant commercial interests and the need for a prompt resolution were compelling, and that the interests of justice would be best served by expediting the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Expedition granted and expedited timetable ordered

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:	Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Hunter [2011] NSWLEC 122
Hearing dates:	12/07/2011
Decision date:	12 July 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Pepper J
Decision:	Expedition granted and expedited timetable ordered
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE: whether expedition should be granted - party seeking expedition delayed in filing proceedings and delayed in seeking expedition - if expedition not granted then development consent would lapse - prejudice to the party opposing an order for expedition not insurmountable
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 ss 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 Conveyancing Act 1919 s 88K Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 40 Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 2.1, 51.60
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Greetings Oxford Koala Hotel Pty Ltd v Oxford Square Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 33 Vaughan v Dawson [2005] NSWSC 33 Wren Investments Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1167
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Wren Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant) Laurence Brian Hunter (First Respondent) Anne Maree Hunter (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Mr S Patterson, solicitor (Applicant) Mr M Byrnes, solicitor (Respondents) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant) Russell C Byrnes Solicitor (Respondents)
File Number(s):	30529 of 2011