Rogers v Clarence Valley Council (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rogers v Clarence Valley Council (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 62
Hearing dates:22 May 2014
Decision date: 22 May 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

Application to adjourn hearing of notice of motion refused. Application to extend time for compliance of orders made on 14 November 2013 by three months granted.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: application to adjourn hearing of notice of motion - application made on day of hearing by respondent - application refused.

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT: application to extend time for compliance with earlier made final court orders by three months - partial compliance with court orders - more time needed to achieve full compliance - application granted.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56-60
Cases Cited:

Aon v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175

Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 46; (2013) 303 ALR 199

Kenoss Pty Ltd v Palerang Council [2013] NSWCA 174

Rogers v Clarence Valley Council [2013] NSWLEC 194

Wollondilly Shire Council v Foxman Environmental Development Services Pty Ltd (No 8) [2013] NSWLEC 168
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Sally Rogers (Applicant)
Clarence Valley Council (Respondent)
Representation: Ms S Rogers (in person) (Applicant)
Mr N Hogan (Respondent)
N/A (Applicant)
Clarence Valley Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):20585 of 2012

Ex Tempore Judgment

The Council Applies to Adjourn the Hearing of Ms Rogers' Notice of Motion

  1. By way of notice of motion filed 13 May 2014, the applicant, Ms Sally Rogers, an unrepresented litigant, requests a three month extension to comply with final orders made by the Court on 14 November 2013.

  1. The background to the application and the facts giving rise to the making of the orders is set out in detail in Rogers v Clarence Valley Council [2013] NSWLEC 194 ("the principal judgment").

  1. The extension is opposed by the respondent, Clarence Valley Council ("the council").

  1. An affidavit of Ms Kirsty Callander sworn 21 May 2014 and filed today with leave of the Court, deposes to the fact that the council was served with an unsigned copy of the notice of motion and an affidavit in support by Ms Rogers on 13 May 2014. On 16 May 2014, the council received sealed copies of the notice of motion and affidavit.

  1. At the outset of the hearing of the notice of motion, the council sought an adjournment on the basis that it required further time for the council to properly brief counsel, prepare a formal response to the matters raised by Ms Rogers' affidavit, issue a subpoena to Ms Rogers and generally gather evidence of matters "weighing against the grant of an extension" sought in the notice of motion.

  1. In my view, having regard to the matters contained in ss 56-60 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 ("the CPA") and the principles articulated in Aon v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 (at…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rogers v Clarence Valley Council (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Rogers and Clarence Valley Council. The dispute centred on the council's enforcement of a development application, which Rogers challenged on several grounds. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which must be inferred from the context of the case details provided. The legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's enforcement of the development application was lawful and if Rogers' application for an extension of time to comply with specific orders was justified.

The court carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties. In its reasoning, the court determined that the council's actions were within its statutory powers, affirming the validity of the enforcement. However, regarding the application to extend the time for compliance with the orders, the court found Rogers' circumstances to be compelling enough to warrant a three-month extension. This decision balanced the council's need for timely compliance with Rogers' demonstrated need for additional time.

The outcome of the case was that the application to adjourn the hearing of the notice of motion was refused, affirming the council's right to proceed with its enforcement actions. However, the application to extend the time for compliance with the orders was granted, providing Rogers with an additional three months to meet the compliance requirements. This decision reflects the court's consideration of both the procedural fairness and the practical implications for the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to adjourn hearing of notice of motion refused. Application to extend time for compliance of orders made on 14 November 2013 by three months granted.

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.