Background
John Mark Mallia commenced Class 3 proceedings disputing the compensation payable after The Hills Shire Council compulsorily acquired his land at Box Hill in October 2025. After the parties filed contentions and an unsuccessful conciliation conference was held, the Court permitted expert evidence in engineering, town planning and valuation.
The Council later sought leave to rely on amended contentions and additional expert evidence in contamination and quantity surveying. Although some amendments responded to Mallia’s amended contentions, the disputed amendments introduced new zoning and contamination issues. Mallia opposed them, contending that they would increase the proceedings’ cost and duration and disrupt the existing timetable.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Froh dismissed the Council’s amended notice of motion. Applying ss 56–60 and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the case-management principles in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27, the Registrar held that the Council had ample opportunity to formulate its case earlier. The Council gave no proper explanation for introducing the new zoning contentions after the parties had prepared for conciliation and expert engineering evidence was underway.
The Registrar also refused leave to introduce contamination contentions because the Council could have sought expert advice during the acquisition process or while preparing its original contentions, and adding the issue would increase costs and likely affect the timetable. Contamination evidence was therefore unnecessary. Separate quantity-surveying evidence was also refused because fill costs could be addressed through the valuers’ calculations and a further expert discipline was not necessary to resolve a real issue.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to add substantial new contentions after litigation has advanced must explain why those matters were not raised earlier.
- In compulsory-acquisition compensation proceedings, amendments may be refused when their cost and delay are inconsistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues.
- Additional expert evidence will not be permitted merely because it may bear on an issue; the Court will consider whether it is genuinely necessary and whether existing experts can address the matter.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores the importance of identifying valuation issues and obtaining necessary expert advice early in New South Wales compulsory-acquisition proceedings. The Court’s contentions process is not merely formal: it defines the case for conciliation, expert evidence and hearing preparation.
Parties that discover or investigate a potential issue late may be unable to add it where earlier opportunities were available and the amendment would materially increase cost or delay. The decision also shows the Court’s willingness to limit overlapping expert disciplines when existing valuation evidence can adequately address the disputed cost.