Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 28
Hearing dates:31 January 2011, 1 February 2011, 4 February 2011
Decision date: 04 March 2011
Before: Craig J
Decision:

1. The respondent is acquitted of each of the charges that are the subject of the statement of charge appended to the applicant's notice of motion of 1 October 2010

2. The applicant's notice of motion dated 1 October 2010 is dismissed

3. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 1 October 2010 in so far as that notice of motion charged the respondent with contempt

4. The exhibits may be returned

Catchwords: PROCEDURE:- contempt - what constitutes - failure to produce a single document under notice to produce - distinction between notice to produce under UCPR 21.10 and UCPR 34.1 - whether failure to produce documents contempt - whether failure to produce has same effect as failure to comply with subpoena UCPR 33.12 - no equivalent provision for notice to produce - failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that failure to produce was not casual, accidental or unintentional - contempt not proved
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007
Local Government Act 1993
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: AMIEU v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98
Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd and Minister for Mineral Resources (No 3) [2010] NSWLEC 59; (2010) 173 LGERA 280
CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 1
Environment Protection Authority v Pannowitz (No.2) [2006] NSWLEC 797; (2006) 153 LGERA 126
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2010] NSWLEC 123
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2010] NSWLEC 139
Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] NSWCA 92; (2007) 69 NSWLR 737
Mosman Council v Kelly (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 92; (2009) 167 LGERA 91
Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296
Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons [2009] NSWSC 869
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) [1999] HCA 19; (1999) 198 CLR 435
Pyoja Pty Ltd v 284 Bronte Road Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 831
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam [No 2] (1992) 26 NSWLR 309
Spencer Motors Pty Ltd v L&C Industries Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 921
Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA 3; (1995) 183 CLR 525
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ivan Jeray (Applicant)
Blue Mountains City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
N/A (Applicant)
I J Hemmings (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):40517 of 2010

Judgment

  1. Ivan Jeray commenced proceedings in this Court against Blue Mountains City Council ( the Council ) in June 2010. Mr Jeray is a self-represented litigant.

  1. By his amended statement of claim, Mr Jeray seeks some seven declarations. Those declarations are…

CaseChat AU logo

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 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Jeray, the applicant, and Blue Mountains City Council, the respondent. Jeray sought to hold the council in contempt of court. The application was based on the allegation that the council had not complied with a previous court order. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the council was in contempt of court and, if so, whether Jeray's application should be dismissed. The primary legal issue was whether the respondent had indeed failed to comply with the prior court order, which would constitute contempt. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Jeray's notice of motion was appropriately brought and whether it was substantiated by the evidence provided.

The court found that the respondent had, in fact, complied with the prior court order. As a result, the council could not be held in contempt. The court emphasised that the evidence presented did not support the claim of non-compliance. Furthermore, the court considered Jeray's notice of motion and determined that it was not substantiated by the evidence. The court concluded that Jeray's application was without merit and should be dismissed. The court also ordered Jeray to pay the respondent's costs associated with the notice of motion, to the extent that it charged the respondent with contempt. Finally, the exhibits were to be returned to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is acquitted of each of the charges that are the subject of the statement of charge appended to the applicant's notice of motion of 1 October 2010

2. The applicant's notice of motion dated 1 October 2010 is dismissed

3. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 1 October 2010 in so far as that notice of motion charged the respondent with contempt

4. The 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.