Namul Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council

[2016] NSWLEC 152

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Namul Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 152
Hearing dates:	17 November 2016
Date of orders:	17 November 2016
Decision date:	17 November 2016
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Moore J
Decision:	Application for joinder dismissed
Catchwords:	JOINDER – claim of legal interest in land – claim said to found basis for joinder – claim rejected by Supreme Court – appeal against determination dismissed by Courtof Appeal – no other basis asserted to support joinder application – joinder refused
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 39A Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Cases Cited:	Namul Pty Ltd v Milovan Stankovic [2013] NSWSC 115 Stankovic v Namul Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 276
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Namul Pty Limited (Applicant) The Hills Shire Council (Respondent) Milovan Stankovic (Applicant for Joinder)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms N Rodwell (Applicant) Mr A Hudson (Respondent) Mr M Stankovic (In person)   Solicitors: Addisons (Applicant) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):	197481 of 2016
Publication restriction:	No

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: On 14 February 2013, in Namul Pty Ltd v Milovan Stankovic [2013] NSWSC 115, Rein J held, and made declarations to that effect, that Mr Stankovic had no right title or interest in the property that is the subject of this development application.

2. On 27 August 2013 in Stankovic v Namul Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 276, Meagher and Barrett JJA and Tobias AJA dismissed Mr Stankovic’s appeal against the decision of Rein J and held that he had, by confirming that decision, no interest in the property.

3. The provisions of s 39A of the Land and Environment Court Act1979 require that there be one of three tests satisfied before a person can be joined as a party to an appeal.  Those tests are: 

1. First, that the person is able to raise an issue that should be considered in relation to the appeal but would not be likely to be sufficiently addressed if the person were not joined as a party, or

2. It is in the interest of justice to do so, or

3. It is in the public interest to do so.

4. Given that the sole basis upon which Mr Stankovic seeks to be joined is his assertion that he had a lawful interest (as what he describes as the rightful owner of the property that is the subject of this development application) and asserts no other basis relating to planning matters under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and as the Court of Appeal has confirmed, as I have earlier cited, the decision of Rein J that he has no right, title or interest in that property, it is inevitable that his application must be dismissed and I so dismiss it.

**********

Decision last updated: 29 November 2016