North Sydney Council v O'Hara
[2003] NSWLEC 105
•03/18/2003
>
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: North Sydney Council v O'Hara [2003] NSWLEC 105 PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
North Sydney Council
O'HaraFILE NUMBER(S): 40119 of 1999 CORAM: Pearlman J KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- vacation of hearing date LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: North Sydney Council v O'Hara [2002] NSWLEC 239 DATES OF HEARING: 18/03/2003 EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :
03/18/2003LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT
APPLICANT
Mr D R Parry (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
in person
SOLICITORS
N/A
JUDGMENT:
40119 of 1999
18 March 2003Pearlman J
- Applicant
- Respondent
1 The application before me this morning is an application by the respondent in these proceedings, Ms O’Hara. The application says in terms that she wishes to “amend the timetable”. I understand from Ms O’Hara’s oral submissions that what she really wishes to do is, first, to vacate the hearing of 22 April 2003, and, secondly, to set another timetable for the filing and serving of evidence. Ms O’Hara has supported her application with an affidavit sworn on 11 March 2003, which I have read, and with oral submissions.
2 The basis of Ms O’Hara’s application can be summarised by the following points. First, she explained to me that she needs more time to prepare for the completion of the hearing of the costs application. Secondly, she has drafted some 60 pages of an affidavit with more than a 100 pages of annexures, but that is not sufficient. Thirdly, she wishes to bring matters to the attention of the Court at the hearing to show that the conclusions drawn by Talbot J in his judgment of 11 December 2002 (North Sydney Council v O’Hara [2002] NSWLEC 239) as to her behaviour and conduct are wrong. Fourthly, she has no facilities to make it easier for her to undertake and complete the preparations she needs to do for the costs application. Fifthly, she has, of course as does everyone, personal matters to attend to as well as the preparation for this case and sixthly she says that she is awaiting further information from the council.
3 The council opposes any vacating of the date. It consents to a variation of the timetable for the filing and serving of evidence.
4 I am influenced and I have considered the following matters in the history of these proceedings. According to the Court’s record on 30 July 2002 a costs application by the council was initially set down for hearing on 16 December 2002.
5 On 6 December 2002, prior to the costs hearing, Ms O’Hara’s notice of motion was heard seeking the vacating of the date and the disqualification of Talbot J from hearing the matter. Talbot J delivered the judgment I have previously referred to on 11 December 2002 in which he dismissed the notice of motion, refused to alter the date for the hearing and refused to disqualify himself.
6 On 16 December 2002 the hearing commenced and the proceedings are part heard before him. But the hearing was adjourned, directions were made for the filing and serving of evidence, and a date for further hearing, namely 22 April 2003, was set down.
7 On 13 February 2003 a further notice of motion seeking vacation of the date came before his Honour. He did not vary the date but he did change the timetable for the filing and service of evidence.
8 I take into account that history, as well as the fact that this is a costs application, the fact that it is a matter that has been going for some considerable time, and the fact that the Court must bring matters to finality. I also take into account his Honour’s comment in par 30 of the judgment I have referred to that it is important for the Court to bring the proceedings to a final outcome. His Honour said, in par 30 of the judgment, that “[F]urther adjournments and postponement of an ultimate hearing in the litigation are not, in my opinion, in Ms O’Hara’s interests. They are certainly not conducive to the efficient and effective conduct of the Court’s business”. I concur in his Honour’s comment about the efficient and effective conduct of the Court’s business.
9 I refuse to vacate the hearing date. I will however make a change of timetable to give a little more time to Ms O’Hara and I make that change in the way that has been suggested by the council.
10 My directions today therefore are as follows.
(1) The prayer seeking vacating of the date of hearing is dismissed.
(2) I direct a change in the timetable for filing and service of evidence as follows:
(a) The respondent is to file and serve the evidence upon which she relies regarding costs by 4pm on 1 April 2003.
(b) The applicant is to file and serve the evidence on which it relies in reply by 4pm on 14 April 2003.
(c) The respondent is to file and serve written submissions by 4pm on 17 April 2003.
0