Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 315 Hearing dates: 7 December 2020 Date of orders: 7 December 2020 Decision date: 07 December 2020 Before: Macfarlan JA Decision: Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: APPEALS – leave to appeal – summons seeking leave filed over three months earlier and no steps taken since – no identification of any ground upon which the proposed appeal might succeed – failure without adequate explanation to comply with Court’s directions – summons dismissed for want of prosecution
Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Elena Bobolas (First Applicant)
Liana Bobolas (Second Applicant)
Mary Bobolas (Third Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Self-represented First and Second Applicant
Ms J Reid (Respondent)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/253297 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Land and Environment Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Class 4
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 31 July 2020; 31 August 2020; 1 September 2020
- Before:
- Pain J
- File Number(s):
- 2020/91346
Judgment
-
This judgment concerns a summons seeking leave to appeal against a number of judgments of Pain J sitting in the Land and Environment Court, including Bobolas v Waverley Council(No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 127. The summons purported to, but did not in fact, attach a document said to be marked “A” and described as “Notice of Appeal”.
-
The return date of the summons was 12 October 2020. The applicants did not appear on that date and a direction was made in the following terms:
“Registry is to issue a notice under UCPR 13.6 directed to the Applicants to show cause why the Summons should not be dismissed or struck out for non-attendance today.”
-
The applicants were given notice by letter to Ms Elena Bobolas of 12 October 2020 of the making of that direction and of the fixing of 2 November 2020 as a date for further directions.
-
On 2 November 2020, Ms Elena Bobolas, apparently representing herself and the other applicants, appeared by telephone before the Registrar when orders were made as follows:
“(1) Appellant’s White Folder and Summary of Argument to be filed and served by 30/11/2020.
(2) Matter listed to show cause on 7/12/2020 at 9.00am, if the White Folder and Summary of Argument are not filed.
(3) Registry notify parties.”
-
The making of these orders was duly notified by letter of 3 November 2020.
-
The White Folder and Summary of Argument were not filed, as required by the orders, by 30 November 2020. Nor have they or any other document which would indicate that the proposed appeals have merit since been filed.
-
At the further directions hearing of the matter today, the applicants sought two further weeks to comply with the directions made on 2 November 2020. They did not file any affidavit in support of that application, stating only that they had had difficulties complying with the timetable because they have a close relative…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bobolas v Waverley Council (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant leave to appeal, given the applicant's inaction and failure to identify any arguable grounds for the appeal. The Court was also required to consider the applicant's failure to comply with the Court's directions without adequate explanation.
Macfarlan JA dismissed the summons for want of prosecution. His Honour reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated any basis upon which the proposed appeal might succeed, nor had they provided a satisfactory explanation for their prolonged inactivity and non-compliance with Court directions. The Court applied the principle that a party seeking leave to appeal must actively prosecute their application and demonstrate a genuine prospect of success.
Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
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.