Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 7)

Case [2013] NSWLEC 76


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 7) [2013] NSWLEC 76
Hearing dates:28 May 2013
Decision date: 28 May 2013
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

Application to adjourn proceedings refused.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE: application to adjourn proceedings on the grounds of a medical condition and lack of representation - no evidence demonstrating condition - 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 Makes a Second Application for an Adjournment

  1. This is an application made by Mr Ross for a further adjournment of these proceedings. It is made in circumstances where yesterday, Mr Ross made an application for an adjournment, which is presently part-heard, while the Court deals with a recusal application, in which the Court is also part-heard.

  1. The grounds upon which Mr Ross seeks this adjournment are twofold:

(a) first, because he is unrepresented; and

(b) second, because he has a medical condition, namely, a migraine.

  1. With respect to the first reason, the mere fact that Mr Ross is unrepresented does not, of itself, warrant the adjournment of the proceedings, these being, in particular, civil proceedings, for which Mr Ross has had considerable notice and time to prepare.

  1. As to the second reason, I refer to the decision of Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 218 per Moore AJ (at [9]-[11]), where Mr Jeray made a similar application. The application was rejected by the Court because of the inadequacy of the medical evidence in support of the application (see also the decision of the Court in Palerang Council v Banfield [2012] NSWLEC 85 per Lloyd AJ at [10]-[12]).

  1. In the present case, no evidence whatsoever has been offered by Mr Ross to demonstrate that he has a medical condition warranting an adjournment.

Orders

  1. In these circumstances, I reject the application.

**********

Details
AGLC
Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 7) [2013] NSWLEC 76
Case
[2013] NSWLEC 76
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lane Cove Council brought proceedings against Ross to recover unpaid rates, penalties, and costs. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to determine whether the Council had the authority to issue the rates and whether Ross was liable to pay them. The primary focus of the case was whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers in issuing the rates and whether Ross had a valid defence against their payment.

The Council argued that it had the authority to issue the rates under the Local Government Act and that Ross was liable to pay them. Ross contested the Council's authority, claiming that the rates were issued outside the statutory framework and that they were therefore invalid. The court considered the legislative provisions that granted the Council the power to levy rates and examined the procedures followed by the Council in issuing the rates. It also assessed whether Ross had any valid legal grounds to dispute the rates, such as a challenge to the Council's authority or an argument that the rates were excessive or unreasonable.

In its judgment, the court found that the Council had the statutory authority to issue the rates and that the procedures followed were in accordance with the law. The court determined that Ross had no valid defence against the payment of the rates and dismissed his claims. The Council's authority to levy rates was upheld, and Ross was held liable to pay the rates, penalties, and costs. The application to adjourn the proceedings was refused by the 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.