Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Randwick City Council v Athens and Anor (No 3) [2004] NSWLEC 49 PARTIES: APPLICANT
Randwick City CouncilFIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
Peta Athens
Athens Holdings Pty Limited (ACN 001 166 552)FILE NUMBER(S): 40097 of 2000 CORAM: Cowdroy J KEY ISSUES: Contempt :- obligation to evidence - objection overruled. LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 136 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 28/01/2004; 29/01/2004; 30/01/2004 EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :01/30/2004 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr A. Thompson (Barrister)SOLICITORS
Bowen & GerathyRESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
Mr M. Ramage QC
Levitt Robinson Solicitors and Associates
JUDGMENT:
IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
40097 of 2000
30 January 2004Cowdroy J
- Applicant
- First Respondent
- Second Respondent
Introduction
1 An application has been made that the Court exclude the content of paragraph 5 of the affidavit of David Mulcahy on the basis that it may be unfairly prejudicial to the alleged contemnors.
2 The Court notes that by letter dated 14 January 2004 the solicitors for the respondents acknowledged that the affidavit of Mr David Mulcahy would be relied upon together with other affidavits. No objection was taken, nor any foreshadowed issue concerning the matter to which objection has been taken.
3 Accordingly, the Court does not consider it appropriate to accede to the request which is now made that the Court exclude it under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995. For this reason, the application is rejected.
- AGLC
- Randwick City Council v Athens (No 3) [2004] NSWLEC 49
- Case
- [2004] NSWLEC 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the content of the affidavit could be excluded under Section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court needed to determine whether the content was so prejudicial that it could not be fairly considered by the court. The court noted that the respondents' solicitors had acknowledged the affidavit would be relied upon and did not object at the time. The court had to weigh the potential prejudice against the need for the content to be considered in the context of the overall case.
Cowdroy J found that since the respondents did not object to the affidavit's content when it was submitted, and no issues were raised at that time, it was not appropriate to exclude the content under Section 136. The court rejected the application to exclude the content of the affidavit, as the respondents had not demonstrated a valid reason to do so. The court's decision emphasised the importance of timely objections in ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered fairly in legal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.