Hurstville City Council v Jacobs

Case [2015] NSWLEC 127


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hurstville City Council v Jacobs and Anor [2015] NSWLEC 127
Hearing dates:17 July 2015
Date of orders: 17 July 2015
Decision date: 17 July 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Moore AJ
Decision:

See [4]

Catchwords: COSTS – substantive orders by consent – costs reserved – costs orders made
Category:Costs
Parties: Hurstville City Council (Applicant)
Kevin Roy Jacobs (First Respondent)
Estate of Ronald John Jacobs (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Cottom, Solicitor (Applicant)
No appearance (First Respondent)
Submitting Appearance (Second Respondent)

  Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s):40060 of 2015
Publication restriction:No

EXTEMPORE Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: I am satisfied that Mr Jacobs was on notice of the costs hearing today by virtue of his appearance before the Registrar on 6 June when this matter was set down for hearing today. I have read the outline of submissions by Mr Cottom as to why costs in the proceedings should be ordered against Mr Kevin Roy Jacobs as the First Respondent.

  2. As Mr Jacobs had not been in Court at the commencement of the proceedings today, I arranged for him to be called three times outside the courtroom and, there being no response to that call, I have proceeded to deal with the matters in his absence.

  3. I am satisfied that, as a consequence of Mr Jacobs being a self-represented litigant, that it would be appropriate to do two things:

  1. First, to make the Order for Costs that is sought by the Council but to do so in a form that will require service of a copy of the order on Mr Jacobs both by e-mail at the e-mail address that he has notified in his original Notice of Appearance filed on 20 April 2015; and

  2. Second, require the applicant Council to place a copy of the orders that will be made as a consequence of this morning’s hearing into Mr Jacobs’ letterbox at 58 Johnstone Street, Peakhurst.

  1. I propose to make the Order for Costs in terms that, if Mr Jacobs wishes to be heard further to dispute the Order for Costs, he is to notify my Associate of his desire to do so and he is to be required to do that by close of business on Friday 31 July 2015 and, if that occurs, there will be a supplementary opportunity provided to enable Mr Jacobs to explain why he considers the orders should not be made. The orders, therefore, are:

  1. The First Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings, including of this costs hearing, as agreed or assessed unless the First Respondent advises my Associate by 4.30 pm on Friday 31 July 2015 that he wishes to be heard further to dispute the application; and

  2. The Applicant is to serve a copy of these orders on Mr Jacobs by e-mail to the e-mail address that he has provided in his Notice of Appearance, a copy of which notice I have provided to the Applicant’s legal representative this morning and also by causing a copy of the orders to be placed in the letterbox of Mr Jacobs’ residential address as recorded on that Notice of Appearance.

**********

Details
AGLC
Hurstville City Council v Jacobs [2015] NSWLEC 127
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hurstville City Council v Jacobs was a case before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the Council sought to enforce a by-law against the respondent, Jacobs, for alleged breaches. The central dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of a by-law that imposed restrictions on the use of commercial property. Jacobs argued that the by-law was invalid and did not apply to his property, while the Council maintained that the by-law was properly enacted and should be enforced against Jacobs.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the validity and interpretation of the by-law in question. The court needed to determine whether the by-law was validly enacted according to the legislative framework, whether it was correctly applied to the respondent's property, and if the respondent's actions constituted a breach of the by-law. The court also needed to consider whether the Council had acted within its powers when enforcing the by-law against Jacobs.

In delivering its judgment, the court first examined the legislative provisions that allowed the Council to enact the by-law. The court found that the by-law was indeed validly enacted, as it followed the necessary procedures and was consistent with the relevant legislation. The court then considered the application of the by-law to Jacobs' property. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the by-law did apply to the respondent's property and that his actions constituted a breach of the by-law. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the restrictions imposed by the by-law to ensure the proper use and management of commercial properties within the municipality. The court found in favour of the Council, upholding the validity of the by-law and its enforcement against Jacobs. As a result, the court ordered Jacobs to comply with the by-law and take necessary actions to rectify any breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4]

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.