Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

(2009) 168 LGERA 1; [2009] NSWCA 178

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on question of law
3. › Land and Environment Court to Court of Appeal
4. › Interlocutory orders
5. › Refusal of leave to amend pleadings
6. › Refusal to admit further evidence
7. › Whether erroneous decision on question of law
8. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 57
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Remittal following appeal
3. › Scope of remitter
4. › Court differently constituted
5. › Power to reject proposed amendment to pleading
6. › Power to reject further evidence
7. › Whether power properly exercised
8. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 38, 57
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Evidence adduced at earlier hearing
4. › Court differently constituted on remittal
5. › Whether party has unqualified right to call further evidence on remittal
6. › Discretion to refuse further evidence
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Amendment of pleadings
3. › Remittal proceedings
4. › Whether proposed amendment seeks to reagitate basis of valuation rejected on appeal
5. › Whether amendment inconsistent with appellate court's determinations

Quick Take

On remittal following an appeal on a question of law, the trial court has a broad discretion as to the scope of any rehearing, including whether to admit further evidence and allow amendments; the strict guidelines for reopening after judgment do not apply. A party has no unqualified right to call further evidence on remittal, even where the court is differently constituted and witnesses are unavailable. The standard for appellate intervention in such discretionary decisions is not less demanding than House v The King, and may be more demanding given the appeal is limited to questions of law.