Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council - [2011] NSWLEC 54

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 54
Hearing dates: 25 March, 1 April 2011
Decision date: 08 April 2011
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Biscoe J
Decision:
(1) Applicant's amended notice of motion 25 March 2011 dismissed; (2) Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of the amended notice of motion; (3) directions.

Catchwords: CONTEMPT:- application to set aside orders in contempt proceedings and for production of documents;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: - production of documents
Legislation Cited: Local Government Act 1993
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 36.15, 36.16
Cases Cited: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 28
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ivan Jeray (Applicant)
Blue Mountains City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr I Jeray, in person (Applicant)
Mr D R Baird, solicitor (Respondent)
Self represented (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group(Respondent)

File Number(s): 40517/10

Judgment

By his amended statement of claim, the applicant, Mr Ivan Jeray, seeks seven declarations to the effect that the respondent, Blue Mountains City Council, has breached a number of provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 by failing to provide access to documents which he claims an entitlement to inspect. The relief that he seeks is also directed to establishing breach on the part of the Council of provisions of the Local Government Act having regard to the manner in which it keeps and maintains its records.

The matter presently before the Court is an amended notice of motion by the applicant, filed and served on 25 March 2011. He moves for orders that:

(a) the orders made by Craig J on 4 March 2011 be set aside;

(b) before that motion is heard, the Council provide him with certain information said to be relevant to the first order; and

On 4 March 2011 Craig J determined Mr Jeray's motion that the Council be found guilty of contempt of court for failure to produce an email of 8 June 2010 from the Council's General Manager, Mr Greenwood, to the Council's Executive Officer, Ms Bargenquast, in response to a notice to produce issued by him on 16 September 2010. His Honour acquitted the Council of the charges; dismissed the notice of motion; and ordered Mr Jeray to pay the Council's costs insofar as the motion charged the Council with contempt: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 28. His Honour said at [5]:

5 As will appear, the contempt ultimately alleged by Mr Jeray is the failure by the Council to produce, in response to a notice to produce issued by him on 16 September 2010, an email dated 8 June 2010 from the Council's General Manager, Mr Greenwood, to the Council's Executive Officer, Ms Julie Bargenquast ( the 8 June email). That email attached a complaint from Mr Jeray dated 7 June 2010 which was, in turn, forwarded to the Council by way of email. A copy of…

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 54
Decision Date: 08 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council was a legal matter that came before the court. The applicant, Jeray, sought relief from the Blue Mountains City Council, the respondent, regarding an issue related to local government decisions. The specific nature of the dispute was not detailed in the summary, but it was significant enough to warrant judicial consideration. The court's role was to interpret and apply the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case, and to provide a resolution that was fair and just.

The court had to determine several legal issues. The primary focus was on the interpretation of local government laws and regulations, and how these applied to the specific circumstances of Jeray's case. The court also had to consider whether the applicant had followed the correct procedural steps, and whether any actions taken by the respondent were lawful and in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court needed to assess the merits of the applicant's claims and decide whether they were substantiated.

The court's reasoning and outcome were grounded in the application of the law to the facts of the case. The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and determined that the applicant's claims were not supported by the law. The court found that the respondent had acted within its legal powers and that Jeray had not followed the correct procedures. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's amended notice of motion and ordered Jeray to pay the respondent's costs. The court also provided directions for future proceedings, indicating the steps that Jeray needed to take if they wished to pursue any further legal action.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Applicant's amended notice of motion 25 March 2011 dismissed; (2) Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of the amended notice of motion; (3) directions.

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 54
Hearing dates:	25 March, 1 April 2011
Decision date:	08 April 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Biscoe J
Decision:	(1) Applicant's amended notice of motion 25 March 2011 dismissed; (2) Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of the amended notice of motion; (3) directions.
Catchwords:	CONTEMPT:- application to set aside orders in contempt proceedings and for production of documents; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: - production of documents
Legislation Cited:	Local Government Act 1993 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 36.15, 36.16
Cases Cited:	Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 28
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Ivan Jeray (Applicant) Blue Mountains City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr I Jeray, in person (Applicant) Mr D R Baird, solicitor (Respondent) Self represented (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group(Respondent)
File Number(s):	40517/10