Young v King (No 7) - [2015] NSWLEC 178

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Young v King (No 7)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWLEC 178
Hearing Date(s):	11 November 2015
Date of Orders:	11 November 2015
Decision Date:	11 November 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Sheahan J
Decision:	The Applicant’s Notice of Motion to vacate the hearing on 30 November 2015 is dismissed.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: No grounds made out for deferral of the commencement of costs hearing
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Margo Young (Applicant) Brendan King (First respondent) Kristina King (Second respondent) Jason Hones (Third respondent) Hones Lawyers (Fourth respondent) Ian Hemmings (Fifth respondent) Stephen Perrens (Sixth respondent) Hughes Trueman Pty Limited (Seventh respondent) Warwick Davies (Eighth respondent) Stephen Noel Griffiths (Ninth respondent) Robert Charles Springett (Tenth respondent) Michael Brearley (Eleventh respondent) Ross Fraser (Twelfth respondent) Tony Tuxworth (Thirteenth respondent) Copland Lethbridge (Fourteenth respondent) Bee & Lethbridge Pty Limited (Fifteenth respondent) Geoff Goodyer (Sixteenth respondent) Victor Schubert (Seventeenth respondent) Warringah Shire Council (Eighteenth respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Muriniti, solicitor (Applicant) Mr M Wright, barrister (First & second respondents) Mr W McManus, barrister (Third & fourth respondents) Mr D Miller, SC, with Ms A Horvath, barrister (Fifth respondent) Mr S Gray, barrister (Sixth & seventh respondent) Mr T Faulkner, SC (Eighth respondent) Mr P Carr, barrister (Ninth respondent) Litigant in person (Tenth respondent) Mr B Lim, barrister (Eleventh respondent) Ms J Reid, barrister (Twelfth respondent) Dr S Berveling, barrister (Thirteenth respondent) Mr E Cox, barrister (Fourteenth & fifteenth respondents) No appearance (Sixteenth respondent) Mr T Buterin, barrister (Seventeenth respondent) Mr S Glascott, barrister (Eighteenth respondent) Ms K Cloake, solicitor (for Mr Muriniti, second respondent to the Kings’ Notices of Motion filed on 21 March 2013 in 40417 of 2003, and on 6 October 2015 in 40449 of 2014) Solicitors: L C Muriniti & Associates (Applicant) Stern Law (First & second respondents) Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Ltd (Third & fourth respondents) Moray & Agnew (Fifth respondent) Kennedys Law (Sixth & seventh respondents) Gilchrist Connell (Eighth respondent) Mullane & Lindsay Solicitors (Ninth respondent) Litigant in person (Tenth respondent) Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Eleventh respondent) N/A (Twelfth respondent) TressCox Lawyers (Thirteenth respondent) Walker Hedges & Co (Fourteenth, fifteenth & sixteenth respondents) N/A (Seventeenth respondent) DLA Piper Australia (Eighteenth respondent) Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (for Mr Muriniti)
File Number(s):	40417 of 200340449 of 2014

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

The hearing of costs issues as between the parties to the substantive litigation, Mrs Young and the Kings, is fixed to commence on 30 November 2015.
The applicant has chosen, however, to seek costs from a large number of non-parties, some of whom have already filed Notices of Motion seeking relief from the Court in that respect.
Long-standing advocate for Mrs Young, Robert Newell, has been taken ill, and Mrs Young has now sought vacation of the November-December hearing dates.
The seriousness of Mr Newell’s condition is one subject of his lengthy affidavit filed in support of the Notice of Motion (“NOM”) to vacate. He is currently in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Young v King (No 7)

Details

AGLC: Young v King (No 7) [2015] NSWLEC 178
Case: [2015] NSWLEC 178
Decision Date: 11 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Young v King (No 7), the court was presented with a case involving the Applicant, Young, seeking to vacate a hearing date. The Respondent, King, opposed the application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the Applicant had sufficient grounds to warrant a postponement of the scheduled hearing date, given the Respondent's opposition. The court needed to determine if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the vacating of the hearing date. The Applicant argued that there were unforeseen events that necessitated the rescheduling, while the Respondent contended that the matter should proceed as scheduled, citing the need for timely resolution.

The court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court’s schedule. It examined the circumstances presented by the Applicant and weighed them against the Respondent’s position. The court found that the Applicant had not provided compelling reasons to vacate the hearing date. The evidence did not demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a postponement. Consequently, the court held that the application to vacate the hearing date was not justified. The decision was made in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness to all parties involved.

As a result of the court's decision, the Applicant’s Notice of Motion to vacate the hearing on 30 November 2015 was dismissed. The hearing was to proceed as originally scheduled, with no changes to the date or time. This outcome reflects the court’s stance on the importance of adhering to court schedules unless there are substantial and justifiable reasons for alteration.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant’s Notice of Motion to vacate the hearing on 30 November 2015 is dismissed.

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.