Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 13)

Case [2013] NSWLEC 80

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 13) [2013] NSWLEC 80
Hearing dates:29 May 2013
Decision date: 29 May 2013
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

Application to adjourn proceedings refused.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: application to adjourn proceedings on medical grounds - medical certificate inadequate - application refused.
Cases Cited:

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 218

Palerang Council v Banfield [2012] NSWLEC 85
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Lane Cove Council (Applicant)
Mr Raymond Ross (Respondent)
Representation: Mr N Eastman (Applicant)
Mr R Ross (in person) (Respondent)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):40628 of 2012

Ex Tempore Judgment

Mr Ross Again Applies to Adjourn the Proceedings Due to Ill Health

  1. At 2 pm today (the last day of three day part-heard Class 4 proceedings), Mr Ross made another application to adjourn these proceedings on the grounds of a medical condition. On this occasion he relied upon the doctor's certificate of Dr Kian Yan Sim practising from St Leonards. The medical certificate states that "Mr Raymond Ross is receiving medical treatment and for the period 29/05/2013 to 30/05/2013 inclusive he will be unfit to attend a courtcase while under the influence of medication". It is dated today.

  1. Again having regard to the principles in Palerang Council v Banfield [2012] NSWLEC 85 (at [10]-[12]) and Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 218 (at [9]-[11]), I do not consider this medical evidence to be sufficient to warrant the adjournment of these proceedings. The medical certificate does not specify the condition said to render Mr Ross to be unfit to attend the remainder of today's hearing in these proceedings, nor does it specify the nature of the medication and its effects. In addition, no explanation is given in the certificate as to the nexus between the unspecified medical condition Mr Ross is suffering from and his asserted inability to continue representing himself in these proceedings.

  1. Although from the bar table Mr Ross indicated that he was suffering from a migraine and that the medication he was taking was codeine and valium, absent cogent objective evidence verifying his claims, I do not accept his claims and I am unpersuaded that the proceedings should be adjourned.

  1. The application is refused. The exhibit is to be returned.

**********

Details
AGLC
Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 13) [2013] NSWLEC 80
Case
[2013] NSWLEC 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lane Cove Council sought an adjournment of proceedings against the respondent, Ross, who was involved in a dispute regarding a development application that the council had refused. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The council contended that the application should be dismissed due to procedural irregularities, while Ross argued that the council's decision was flawed and should be reviewed.

The court had to determine whether the application for an adjournment was warranted and, if not, whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Ross's procedural submissions were valid and whether the council's decision-making process complied with relevant legislative requirements.

The court held that the application for an adjournment was not justified as it was not shown that there were exceptional circumstances warranting such a delay. The court further found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was not flawed and was in accordance with the applicable legislation. The council's decision-making process was deemed to be proper, and Ross's submissions regarding procedural irregularities were rejected. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed on the grounds that it was without merit.

The court refused the application to adjourn the proceedings and dismissed the development application on the basis that the council's decision was lawful and properly made. The dismissal of the application was final, with no further appeal permitted unless the respondent sought leave from a higher court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to adjourn proceedings refused.

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.