Buyozo Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal Council

Case •

[2008] NSWLEC 105

•

29 February 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Buyozo Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 105
PARTIES:

APPLICANT:
Buyozo Pty Limited

RESPONDENT:
Mosman Municipal Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 10548 of 2006
CORAM: Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- application to vacate hearing date because counsel jammed.
DATES OF HEARING: 29 February 2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 29 February 2008
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:
Mr C R Reid, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Reid & Vesely

RESPONDENT:
Ms J Walsh, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Pike Pike and Fenwick

JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      BISCOE J

      29 February 2008

      10548 of 2006

      BUYOZO PTY LIMITED v MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

      EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a motion by the respondent council to vacate the hearing date next Monday, 3 March. The ground is that counsel briefed by the council is jammed in another case which has overrun.

2 The position of the applicant in the proceedings, Buyozo Pty Limited, is that normally it would endeavour to be amenable to such a motion but that in this case it opposes the motion because of the long history of delay in the matter; its perception (about which I pass no judgment) that the council has endeavoured in the past to thwart progress of the matter; and that every day that the subject development consent is deferred is causing it damage.

3 The hearing is of an application under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend a deferred commencement condition imposed in June 2007 by this Court, by reducing the number of required parking spaces from six to four. The issue is narrow and the parties’ hearing time estimates are between one hour and half a day. Prima facie, on such a limited issue, the council should be able, even at short notice, to brief other experienced and competent counsel without detriment. There is no evidence nor any submission that other experienced and competent counsel are not available or able at short notice to handle this limited issue. When counsel is jammed, as sometimes occurs where cases overrun, members of the planning law bar generally should be able to step into the breach on short notice in matters such as this, as happens in other jurisdictions.

4 In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that I should accede to this motion. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0