Young v King (No 4)

Case [2012] NSWLEC 236

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236
Hearing dates:17, 18, 19 September 2012
Decision date: 19 October 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

1. The respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2012 is upheld.

2. The applicant's Notice of Motion originally filed on 23 May 2008, as finally formulated on 27 March 2012, is dismissed.

3. Costs are formally reserved, and the parties are directed to file any Notices of Motion seeking costs orders within 28 days, and after 28 days to approach the Registrar within a further 14 days to fix a timetable for the filing of written submissions for the trial judge's consideration in chambers.

4. Exhibits are to be retained until the question of costs has been resolved.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Application for summary dismissal of a Notice of Motion brought by an applicant to set aside orders made in her case in 2004 - jurisdiction of the court to consider such a motion - question whether a case is made out for such a motion if within jurisdiction - costs
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Conveyancing Act 1919
Dividing Fences Act 1991
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Supreme Court Act 1970
Water Act 1912
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Australian Hardboards Ltd v Hudson Investment Group Ltd [2007] NSWCA 104; (2007) 70 NSWLR 201
Bankstown City Council v Mohamad El Dana [2009] NSWLEC 68
Brown v Randwick City Council [2011] NSWLEC 172
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1982-3) 151 CLR 447
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1
Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Haughton v Minister for Planning and Macquarie Generation; Haughton v Minister for Planning and TRUenergy Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 217; (2011) 185 LGERA 373
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales; [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531
Logwon Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council (1993) 33 NSWLR 13
Lowy v The Land and Environment Court of NSW [2002] NSWCA 353; 123 LGERA 179
Natva Developments Pty Ltd v McDonald Bros Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 777; (2004) 12 BPR 22,287
Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346
Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd v Stocks & Holdings (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1976) 15 ACTR 45; (1976) 28 FLR 195
Presrod Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2010] NSWLEC 192
Roach v B & W Steel Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 110
Romeo v Paplia [2012] NSWCA 221
R v Bolton (1991) 155 J.P.N. 620
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 121; (2009) 167 LGERA 432
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) [2011] NSWCA 324
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 5) [2012] NSWCA 75

Continue reading Young v King (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236
Case
[2012] NSWLEC 236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Young v King (No 4) involved the parties, Young, the applicant, and King, the respondent, in a legal dispute that came before the court. The nature of the dispute centred around motions filed by the applicant on 23 May 2008 and subsequently amended on 27 March 2012, and a Notice of Motion filed by the respondent on 18 September 2012. The court was tasked with deciding whether to uphold or dismiss these motions and, if applicable, to determine the costs associated with the proceedings.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve were primarily concerned with the validity and admissibility of the motions presented by both parties. The court had to assess the procedural correctness of the motions, the merits of the arguments presented, and the implications of any previous court orders or findings that might affect the current motions. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate costs order to be made in light of the outcome of the motions.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2012 was upheld, while the applicant's Notice of Motion originally filed on 23 May 2008, as finally formulated on 27 March 2012, was dismissed. The court provided detailed reasoning for its decision, taking into account the procedural history of the case and the arguments advanced by both parties. The court also noted that costs were formally reserved and directed the parties to file any Notices of Motion seeking costs orders within a specified timeframe, with further directions to be given by the Registrar. Exhibits were to be retained until the question of costs had been resolved.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2012 was upheld, the applicant's Notice of Motion originally filed on 23 May 2008, as finally formulated on 27 March 2012, was dismissed, costs were formally reserved pending further submissions, and exhibits were to be retained until the costs issue was resolved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2012 is upheld.

2. The applicant's Notice of Motion originally filed on 23 May 2008, as finally formulated on 27 March 2012, is dismissed.

3. Costs are formally reserved, and the parties are directed to file any Notices of Motion seeking costs orders within 28 days, and after 28 days to approach the Registrar within a further 14 days to fix a timetable for the filing of written submissions for the trial judge's consideration in chambers.

4. Exhibits are to be retained until the question of costs has been resolved.

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.