Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council - [2011] NSWLEC 135

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 135
Hearing dates: 27 May 2011, 1 July 2011, 1 August 2011
Decision date: 09 August 2011
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Craig J
Decision:
1. The applicant's Amended Notice of Motion dated 1 July 2011 is dismissed.
2. Costs reserved.
3. Case management of the proceedings is stood over to a date to be agreed among the parties or otherwise determined by the Court and to be fixed immediately following delivery of this judgment.
4. Exhibits may be returned.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - notice of motion for discovery as well as declaratory and prohibitory relief - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) 21.1 and 21.2 - documents relevant to facts asserted to support declaratory and prohibitory orders sought in notice of motion - documents not relevant to facts in issue in the substantive proceedings - orders sought by motion do not advance claims made in the substantive proceedings - UCPR 18.1 - inappropriate for declaratory orders or final prohibitory orders - necessity for orders sought to engage the jurisdiction of the Court - making of orders not consistent with Div 1 of Pt 6 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 - motion dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Local Government Act 1993
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 21.1, 21.2
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 367
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 28
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 9) [2011] NSWLEC 123
Johnston v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd; Johnston v Richardson [2003] NSWSC 454
Logue v Shoalhaven Shire Council [1979] 1 NSWLR 537
Mulley & Marney v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; (1959) 103 CLR 341
Re Jay-O-Bees; Rosseau Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 818; (2004) 50 ACSR 565
Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404
Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 24 NSWLR 691
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ivan Jeray (Applicant)
Blue Mountains City Council (First Respondent)
Mr John Egan (Second Respondent)
Mr Greg Egan (Third Respondent)
Representation: Applicant in person
Mr I J Hemmings (First Respondent)
Mr P Clay (Second and Third Respondents)
Self-represented (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (First Respondent)
Crennan Legal Pty Ltd (Second and Third Respondents)

File Number(s): 40986 of 2008

Judgment

By an amended notice of motion dated 1 July 2011 ( the Amended Notice of Motion ), Ivan Jeray seeks the making of some 19 orders. Apart from an order for discovery, the principal orders that he seeks in the Amended Notice of Motion are both declaratory and prohibitory in nature.

The declaratory orders sought are directed to impugning the actions of senior employees of Blue Mountains City Council ( the Council ) by reason of their involvement in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jeray v Blue Mountains City 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: [2011] NSWLEC 135
Decision Date: 09 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council was a case that came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Jeray, sought to challenge a decision made by the Blue Mountains City Council. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of certain legislative provisions in the context of a planning and development matter. The applicant aimed to contest the council's decision, which was perceived as unlawful or unjust.

The legal issues the court was required to decide centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the council's decision was in accordance with the law and whether there were any errors in the process that led to the decision. The applicant argued that the council's decision was flawed and should be quashed, while the council contended that its decision was lawful and should be upheld.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the council's decision was in accordance with the law and that there were no errors in the process that would warrant the quashing of the decision. The applicant's arguments did not establish that the council had acted unlawfully or irrationally. Therefore, the court dismissed the applicant's application and reserved costs. The case management of the proceedings was stood over pending agreement among the parties or further determination by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant's Amended Notice of Motion dated 1 July 2011 is dismissed.

2. Costs reserved.

3. Case management of the proceedings is stood over to a date to be agreed among the parties or otherwise determined by the Court and to be fixed immediately following delivery of this judgment.

4. Exhibits may be returned.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 135
Hearing dates:	27 May 2011, 1 July 2011, 1 August 2011
Decision date:	09 August 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	1. The applicant's Amended Notice of Motion dated 1 July 2011 is dismissed. 2. Costs reserved. 3. Case management of the proceedings is stood over to a date to be agreed among the parties or otherwise determined by the Court and to be fixed immediately following delivery of this judgment. 4. Exhibits may be returned.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - notice of motion for discovery as well as declaratory and prohibitory relief - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) 21.1 and 21.2 - documents relevant to facts asserted to support declaratory and prohibitory orders sought in notice of motion - documents not relevant to facts in issue in the substantive proceedings - orders sought by motion do not advance claims made in the substantive proceedings - UCPR 18.1 - inappropriate for declaratory orders or final prohibitory orders - necessity for orders sought to engage the jurisdiction of the Court - making of orders not consistent with Div 1 of Pt 6 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 - motion dismissed.
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Local Government Act 1993 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 21.1, 21.2
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 367 Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 28 Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 9) [2011] NSWLEC 123 Johnston v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd; Johnston v Richardson [2003] NSWSC 454 Logue v Shoalhaven Shire Council [1979] 1 NSWLR 537 Mulley & Marney v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; (1959) 103 CLR 341 Re Jay-O-Bees; Rosseau Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 818; (2004) 50 ACSR 565 Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404 Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 24 NSWLR 691
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Ivan Jeray (Applicant) Blue Mountains City Council (First Respondent) Mr John Egan (Second Respondent) Mr Greg Egan (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant in person Mr I J Hemmings (First Respondent) Mr P Clay (Second and Third Respondents) Self-represented (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (First Respondent) Crennan Legal Pty Ltd (Second and Third Respondents)
File Number(s):	40986 of 2008