Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2012] NSWCA 339
Hearing dates:15 June and 11 October 2012
Decision date: 11 October 2012
Before: Allsop P at [1], [43]
Macfarlan JA at [42]
Decision:

As to the summons dated 15 February 2012 and filed 16 February 2012:

1. Extend time for the filing and service of the summons to a date conformable with compliance with the Rules.

2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3. Summons dismissed.

4. Applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

As to the summons dated 9 July 2012 in respect of the decision of the Land and Environment Court of 23 November 2011:

1. Application for an extension of time in which to file and serve the summons for leave to appeal refused.

2. Summons otherwise dismissed with costs.

As to the summons dated 9 July 2012 in respect of the decision of the Land and Environment Court dated 30 November 2011:

1. Application for an extension of time in which to file and serve the summons for leave to appeal refused.

2. Summons otherwise dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for extension of time for leave to appeal - no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-60
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16(1) and 36.16(2)(b)
Cases Cited: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 367
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ivan Jeray (Applicant)
Blue Mountains City Council (First Respondent)
Greg Egan (Second Respondent)
John Egan (Third Respondent)
Representation: In person (Applicant)
I J Hemmings (First Respondent)
P R Clay SC (Second and Third Respondents)
In person (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (First Respondent)
Crennan Legal (Second and Third Respondents)
File Number(s):2012/53739 2012/191516 2012/225118
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
[2011] NSWLEC 218
[2011] NSWLEC 228
Before:
Moore AJ
File Number(s):
2008/40986
2010/40517

Judgment

  1. ALLSOP P: On 10 December 2010 this Court (Macfarlan JA and myself, Young JA dissenting) allowed an appeal of Mr Jeray from orders made by a judge of the Land and Environment Court on 16 July 2009 dismissing proceedings in that Court. The matter was remitted to the Land and Environment Court: see Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 367. Mr Jeray and the Council were participating in the fourth day of a scheduled ten day hearing. The events that led to the dismissal are set out at [2010] NSWCA 367 at [13]-[23]. Briefly, and without attempting to be complete, Mr Jeray refused to proceed…

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
[2012] NSWCA 339
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales involved an application by Jeray for leave to appeal against decisions of the Land and Environment Court, and for extensions of time to file and serve the necessary documents. The respondents were the Blue Mountains City Council.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether to grant an extension of time for Jeray to file and serve the summons for leave to appeal, and subsequently, whether to grant leave to appeal itself. The Court was also required to consider the appropriate orders regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal noted that the applications for extension of time were made significantly out of time, and that there was no question of principle raised by the proposed appeals. Given the lack of any compelling reason to depart from the usual time limits and the absence of a significant legal issue, the Court refused the applications for extensions of time. Consequently, the summonses for leave to appeal were dismissed. Jeray was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

As to the summons dated 15 February 2012 and filed 16 February 2012:

1. Extend time for the filing and service of the summons to a date conformable with compliance with the Rules.

2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3. Summons dismissed.

4. Applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

As to the summons dated 9 July 2012 in respect of the decision of the Land and Environment Court of 23 November 2011:

1. Application for an extension of time in which to file and serve the summons for leave to appeal refused.

2. Summons otherwise dismissed with costs.

As to the summons dated 9 July 2012 in respect of the decision of the Land and Environment Court dated 30 November 2011:

1. Application for an extension of time in which to file and serve the summons for leave to appeal refused.

2. Summons otherwise dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.