2026/00041170
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 10/3/26 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 115.2 KB) |
| 20/3/26 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 340.5 KB) |
| 30/3/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 656.0 KB) |
| 7/4/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 151.5 KB) |
| 7/4/26 | Appellant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 130.1 KB) |
EVIDENCE – with leave, Fred Caterson Champions (the applicant) appeals from a decision refusing an application for leave to rely upon expert evidence. The proceedings relate to a challenge brought by a community association, Fred Caterson Champions, to The Hills Shire Council's approval of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) authorising the construction of three new rugby fields and infrastructure in the Fred Caterson Reserve. The applicant contends that the project will adversely impact threatened owl species and alleges that the Council failed to take into account mandatory environmental considerations, to make necessary inquiries about light spill impacts, and therefore breached its duty under s 5.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The challenge was commenced out of time, and the interlocutory dispute concerned whether time should be extended and whether the applicant could rely on expert ecological evidence from Dr Debus to support its grounds for judicial review. Pritchard J held that the applicant should be granted an extension of time under r 59.10(2) of the UCPR, as it acted promptly after the REF was published. However, her Honour refused leave to rely upon the expert evidence of Dr Debus because the report criticised the merits of the environmental assessment rather than identifying any legally required but omitted inquiry. The REF considered ecological reports addressing the owl species, and the proposed expert evidence addressed the merits impermissibly for judicial review proceedings. That refusal of leave to rely upon the expert evidence was the subject of a summons seeking leave to appeal. There are two primary grounds of appeal. First, that the duty under s 5.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires examining and taking into account all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment, which is a "duty to inquire" such that expert evidence may be admitted to demonstrate what those enquiries should have been. Secondly, that the failure of the Council to make those enquiries was legally unreasonable, which is an established ground to admit expert evidence.
Last updated: