Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council

[2011] NSWCA 307

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council & Ors [2011] NSWCA 307

Hearing dates:

15 September 2011

Decision date:

15 September 2011

Before:

Giles and Whealy JJA

Decision:

Decline to adjourn the applications for leave to appeal.

[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:

Adjournment - application refused - no question of principle.

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Ivan Jeray - Applicant in all matters
Blue Mountains City Council - Respondent in 2011/106643 and 2011/149208 and First Respondent in 2011/202439
Greg Egan - Second Respondent in 2011/202349
John Egan - Third Respondent in 2011/202349

Representation:

I Jeray - in person
I Hemmings - Respondent in 2011/106643 and 2011/149208 and First Respondent in 2011/202439
P Clay - Second and Third Respondents in 2011/202349
Marsdens Law Group - First Respondent in all matters
Crennan Legal, Bathurst - Second and Third Respondents in 2011/202349

File Number(s):

CA 2011/106643 CA 2011/149208 CA 2011/202349

 Decision under appeal 

Before:

Craig J - 4 March 2011 (Matter No LEC 2010/40517)
Biscoe J - 8 April 2011 (Matter No LEC 2010/40517)
Craig J - 27 May 2011 (Matter No. LEC 2008/40986)

File Number(s):

LEC 2010/40517 & LEC 2008/40986

JUDGMENT

1. GILES JA : Three applications for leave to appeal from decisions in the Land and Environment Court have been listed for hearing before us today. The applicant, Mr Ivan Jeray, has applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the applications. The application for an adjournment has been dealt with on the basis that Mr Jeray also puts to us his submissions that the leave applications should not have been set down before us today by the Registrar, which occurred on 8 August, thereby obviating the need for a formal application to review the act of the Registrar in doing so.

1. The submissions put to us by Mr Jeray came down, we think, to the following.

1. First, he said that he told the Registrar that all three matters should not be listed together, and that there would be too great a workload for him to prepare to deal with all three. He said he asked the Registrar for further time to complete the white folders and prepare for the hearing. Before us today there is para 7 of two affidavits, the two affidavits dealing with different of the applications for leave to appeal, in which Mr Jeray says that due to insufficient funds, fatigue in running cases in the Land and Environment Court and preparing for six cases in the Court of Appeal, and his declining mental health including headaches and dizziness experienced over recent days, he has been unable to complete and return the white folders and prepare for the leave applications listed for today.

1. Allied with that, and as indicated in para 7, Mr Jeray said that the white folders are incomplete. The white folders have in fact been returned, but he said they are incomplete in that they do not contain judgments being two later decisions in the Land and Environment Court and do not contain a transcript of proceedings in the Land and Environment Court on 27 May this year. The later judgments of the Land and Environment Court have in fact been made available to us, although not in the white folder.

1. The second matter in Mr Jeray's submissions was that he has filed notices of intention to appeal against the two later decisions, one of Justice Sheahan on 14 July and the other of Justice Craig on 1 August. He submitted that the decisions given by their Honours are material to the subject matter of the leave applications before us, and that it is not appropriate that the three matters listed before us today should proceed until there is resolved a particular issue with which at least one of those decisions was concerned, namely (and we describe it with some generality) whether conduct of certain council officers in participation in the main proceedings, which persons Mr Jeray says are implicated in the main proceedings and are providing instructions, is a matter which is inimical to his case and should be precluded.

1. In our view, there was no error by the Registrar in setting the three matters down for hearing today. Mr Jeray had formulated grounds of appeal and his summary of argument, albeit that the latter did not greatly extend beyond the grounds of appeal, and therefore must have had an understanding of the matters of which he wished to complain. There has been time since then for Mr Jeray to prepare for the hearing today and, as submitted by counsel for the Council and for Mr and Mrs Egan, the two sets of relevant respondents, the circumstances are not such that there should be delay in determining the leave applications.

1. The white books have been completed by addition of the judgments said to be relevant, and while we still do not have a transcript of 27 May as at present advised we do not see that having the transcript will assist, or not having it will impede, disposition of the relevant application for leave to appeal. However, we indicate that in that respect if it does appear in the course of submissions concerning that leave application that the transcript is necessary in order that it properly be resolved, we will reconsider whether that leave application should continue to a conclusion.

1. We do not see that the existence of the notices of intention to appeal against the later decisions is a matter which bears upon whether or not the applications for leave to appeal from the earlier decisions should go ahead. The leave applications will be determined on their own merits according to the circumstances as they existed before the judges at the time and, so far as it may be relevant, in the light of succeeding events, but the succeeding events do not in our view include that there may be appeals from the subsequent decisions to which we have referred.

1. Accordingly, so far as there may be an informal review of the decision of the Registrar we do not uphold it, and we decline to adjourn the applications for leave to appeal.

1. WHEALY JA : Yes, I agree.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 October 2011