Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Blacktown City Council v Wilkie and Ors [2001] NSWLEC 161 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Blacktown City Council
Wilkie and OrsFILE NUMBER(S): 40025 of 2001 CORAM: Pearlman J KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- joinder LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970 pt 8 r 8 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 10/07/2001 EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :
07/10/2001LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr D R Parry (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Houston Dearn O'ConnorFIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS
in person
SOLICITORS
N/A
Mr R W Killalea (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Low & Associates
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND 40025 of 2001
ENVIRONMENT COURT
Pearlman J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES 10 July 2001
- Applicant
- First Respondent
MARK REID trading as GRAVEYARD RECYCLING and
THE GRAVEYARD RECYCLING
- Second Respondent
Third Respondent
1. The second application today is made by Ms Wilkie, who seeks the joinder of the registered proprietor of the land, a Mr Constantine, who has furnished some affidavits, two affidavits I think, in the council’s case.
2. The Court has power to join another party as a respondent under pt 8 r 8 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970. However, I am not prepared to grant that application. This case has been on foot for a long time. Ms Wilkie has known about the proceedings. The case has been set down for hearing once before and again for hearing today.
3. An application for joinder should not be made at the heel of the hunt. It should be made well ahead. In any event, I accept the submission of Mr Parry, for the council, that the joinder sought will make no difference because the orders, if any orders are made, will be made jointly and severally on all respondents. Hence I see no pressing reason why it is necessary to join Mr Constantine to these proceedings to rectify a breach of the law, and for that reason I dismiss that application.
- AGLC
- Blacktown City Council v Wilkie [2001] NSWLEC 161
- Case
- [2001] NSWLEC 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Constantine should be joined as a respondent in the proceedings. The legal issue centred on the appropriate timing and necessity of joining a new party in ongoing litigation, particularly under the provisions of Part 8, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970. The court had to weigh the arguments for and against the joinder, considering the potential impact on the proceedings and the principle that applications for joinder should ideally be made well in advance of the hearing.
Pearlman J dismissed the application to join Mr Constantine as a respondent. The judge noted that the proceedings had been ongoing for some time, and Misty Wilkie had been aware of the litigation. The court observed that the application to join Mr Constantine came at a late stage, which was not conducive to fair and efficient judicial processes. Furthermore, the judge accepted the council's submission that any orders, if granted, would be made jointly and severally against all respondents. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no pressing reason to join Mr Constantine, given that the outcome would not be materially affected by his inclusion in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.