Carroll v Byron Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Carroll v Byron Shire Council [2019] NSWLEC 52
Hearing dates: 12 April 2019
Date of orders: 12 April 2019
Decision date: 12 April 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 6
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

Leave to appeal refused, with costs.

Catchwords: APPEAL: Application for leave to appeal out of time – refused because statute-barred – costs.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Cases Cited: Fletcher v Byron Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 185
Fletcher v Byron Shire Council (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 226
Hussain v Liverpool City Council [2014] NSWLEC 45
Thaler v Cooma Monaro Shire Council [2015] NSWLEC 119
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Patrick Carroll (Appellant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Litigant in Person (Appellant)
Mr D Baird, solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Litigant in Person (Appellant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/47097
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Byron Local Court
Jurisdiction:
N/A
Citation:
N/A
Date of Decision:
16 March 2017
Before:
Magistrate J A Linden
File Number(s):
2016/335030

EXTEMPORE Judgment

  1. Mr Carroll filed in this Court, on 11 February 2019, an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon him by Byron Local Court on 10 February 2017, after he had challenged two penalty infringement notices (“PIN”) issued to him, on 19 November 2015, for displaying certain signs in the Bryon area, without approval.

  2. By February 2017, he appears to have relocated to the Gladstone area of Queensland, and he is now located at Smithfield near Cairns. Those relocations have hindered his communication with the Council and the Courts, as his filed documents make clear. He has come all the way from Cairns to Sydney for the List Judge directions hearing scheduled for this morning.

  3. Byron Local Court imposed, in his absence, fines of $10,000 and $20,000, and a costs order for $1500, whereas the two challenged PINs were for $3000 each.

  4. Mr Carroll sought annulment of the February 2017 fines and orders, but, rightly or wrongly, he failed to appear when that application was listed on 16 March 2017.

  5. His application was dismissed, again in his absence, and the State authorities have, since early 2018, been seeking to enforce the Byron Local Court’s fines.

  6. His efforts to obtain a grant of legal aid to deal with the resulting situation have been unsuccessful, and the Court’s duty lawyer scheme stopped assisting him in August 2018.

  7. He also considers that he received, over time, conflicting information and advice regarding his situation.

  8. He accepts (summons par 5) that his “petition for leave to appeal out of time is being made nearly two years after the default judgment on 16 March 2017”, but he submits that it is in the “interests of justice that [his] appeal be granted”.

  9. On 5 April 2019, he filed a document entitled “Additional Material”, which is in the nature of submissions.

  10. He submits that his appeal is made under s 32 of the NSW Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, and that “a late application to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Carroll v Byron Shire Council 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the appellant, Carroll, and the respondent, Byron Shire Council, was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The conflict arose from the Byron Shire Council's decision to refuse an application for development approval for a property owned by Carroll. The refusal was based on the property's location within a bushfire-prone area and its proximity to a high-risk bushfire zone. Carroll sought to appeal the decision, arguing that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that the property was not, in fact, within a high-risk bushfire zone.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether the property was correctly identified as being within a high-risk bushfire zone. The court examined the relevant planning and bushfire management laws and assessed the evidence presented regarding the property's location and risk factors. The court also considered the principles of natural justice and the requirement for decision-makers to act fairly and reasonably.

The court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and that the property was indeed within a high-risk bushfire zone. The evidence presented by the Council was deemed sufficient to support the decision, and the court found that the Council had acted within its lawful powers. The court further determined that the principles of natural justice were upheld, and the decision-making process was fair and reasonable. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the Council's decision was upheld.

The court also found that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore, leave to appeal was refused. The costs of the appeal were awarded to the Byron Shire Council. The decision underscores the importance of following established planning and bushfire management laws and the need for decision-makers to act fairly and reasonably.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused, 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.