Elaine Teoh v Hunters Hill Council

[2013] HCASL 125

ELAINE TEOH

v

HUNTERS HILL COUNCIL & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 125
S45/2013

1. The applicant sought judicial review in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales of a grant by the first respondent of a development consent.  On 16 September 2008, Sheahan J dismissed her application.  The applicant did not appeal that decision but, by notices of motion in the Land and Environment Court, sought orders reopening the proceeding.  On 31 July 2009, Sheahan J dismissed two such notices of motion.

2. On 10 March 2010, the New South Wales Court of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal against the decision of Sheahan J.  Since then, the applicant has filed numerous additional applications for leave to appeal the same decision or to reopen previous applications.

3. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 2 November 2012[1] holding that it was functus officio.  Only one of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal relates to the judgment that is actually the subject of the application for special leave to appeal.  That ground is that the Court of Appeal erred when it failed to take into account further evidence said to be contained in an affidavit of 22 June 2012.  An affidavit of that date appears to have been before the Court of Appeal in at least one of the applicant's previous applications[2] and the Court of Appeal, in the decision from which special leave to appeal is now sought, referred to the decision in that application.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion that it was functus officio.  The applicant would enjoy no prospects of success in this Court.

   [1]Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 7) [2012] NSWCA 356.

   [2]Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 6) [2012] NSWCA 260.

4. The applicant requires an enlargement of time within which to file her application for special leave to appeal.  She has filed an affidavit, presumably in support of an application for that enlargement of time.  As the application for special leave has no prospects of success, an enlargement of time should not be granted.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  

V.M. Bell
14 August 2013 S.J. Gageler