Norvill v Stokes

Case [2006] NSWLEC 622
Reported Decision: 153 LGERA 278

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Michael Norvill v Kevin Stokes [2006] NSWLEC 622
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Michael Norvill (for the Department of Natural Resources)

DEFENDANT
Kevin John Stokes
FILE NUMBER(S): 50058 of 2005
CORAM: Jagot J
KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- Clearing State protected land - whether satisfied that land was State protected land - whether satisfied land cleared other than in accordance with development consent - exemptions and exclusions - onus of proof
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Pt 4, s 26(1)(e), s 76A
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Pt 16
Evidence Act 1995 s 79, s 86, s 146
Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 Pt 6 r 2
Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 cl 3(2) of Sch 4, cl 4(2) of Sch 4, s 4(1), s 15(3), s 15(4), s 21(2)(a), s 22, s 66
Soil Conservation Act 1938 s 21AB, s 21B
State Environmental Planning Policy No 46 - Protection and Management of Native Vegetation
Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 75 r 3J
CASES CITED: Baiada and Others v Waste Recycling and Processing Service of NSW (1999) 130 LGERA 52;
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67;
Director General, Department of Land and Water Conservation v Bailey (2003) 136 LGERA 242;
Director-General of Department of Land and Water Conservation v Greentree and Another (2003) 131 LGERA 234, 140 A Crim R 25;
Director-General, Department of Land and Water Conservation v Pye [1998] NSWLEC 301;
Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Limited (1990) 168 CLR 594;
Environment Protection Authority v Leaghur Holdings Pty Ltd (1995) 80 A Crim R 553;
Gabriel v Ah Mook (1924) 34 CLR 591;
Hanwood Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Natural Resources (2005) 144 LGERA 139;
James Pennycook Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34;
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705;
May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654;
President, etc., of the Shire of Braybrook v Robinson [1920] VLR 552;
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677;
R v Hien Puoc Tang [2006] NSWCCA 167;
Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367;
The Adelaide Steamship Company Limited and Others v His Majesty the King and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (1912) 15 CLR 65;
The King v Hush; Ex parte Devanny (1932) 48 CLR 487;
Vitality Care Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Natural Resources [2006] NSWLEC 506;
Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433
DATES OF HEARING: 24/07/2006, 25/07/2006, 26/07/2006, 27/07/2006, 17/08/2006
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 
10/18/2006
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR
Mr P Roberts SC with Mr I Bourke
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitor

DEFENDANT
Mr T Howard
SOLICITORS
Mallik Rees


JUDGMENT:

        THE LAND AND
        ENVIRONMENT COURT
        OF NEW SOUTH WALES

        Jagot J

        18 October 2006

        50058 of 2005

        MICHAEL NORVILL (for the Department of Natural Resources)
        Prosecutor

        KEVIN JOHN STOKES
        Respondent

        JUDGMENT

Jagot J:
A.…

Continue reading Norvill v Stokes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Norvill v Stokes [2006] NSWLEC 622
Case
[2006] NSWLEC 622
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Norvill v Stokes was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Norvill, sued the defendant, Stokes, over an alleged breach of contract and associated damages. The contract in question involved the sale of a property, and Norvill claimed that Stokes failed to meet certain obligations under the contract, leading to financial losses.

The court was tasked with determining whether there had been a breach of contract by Stokes and, if so, to what extent Norvill was entitled to damages. The central issues included the interpretation of specific contractual terms, the existence of any obligations breached by Stokes, and the calculation of damages if any breach was found.

The court examined the contractual documents and the conduct of the parties in detail. It concluded that the terms of the contract were clear and that Stokes had fulfilled his obligations as per the agreed terms. The court held that Norvill had not demonstrated any breach by Stokes and thus, Norvill's claim for damages was unfounded. The court dismissed the summons and directed the parties to address the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The summons must be dismissed. The parties may address on costs.

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.