JOHNSON v LAKE MACQUARIE CITY COUNCIL SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — CouRT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA, MEAGHER JA and HopE AJA 14 October 1991 [1991] NSWCA 160 Mahoney JA. This is an application seeking, as I understand it, an order extending time for seeking leave to appeal and an order seeking leave to appeal with respect to orders made by the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court. This is an application which in my opinion should fail. Ordinarily it is the practice of this Court not to give reasons granting or refusing leave to appeal in matters of this kind but in the special circumstances of the case it is in my opinion appropriate that certain reasons be given. It would appear that the matters involved are two class 1 proceedings, being proceedings in respect of a marina development, and a class 4 proceeding. The learned judge had given directions in relation to the formulation of issues. On 26 July 1991 when the final orders were made the judge said this: It remains, however, to note that in respect of the class one proceedings it is not possible for me at least to identify the issues with that degree of clarity or coherence that I think must be there in order for the defendants in each case to properly prepare their case. As I have said this is because the material put before the Court by Mr Johnson simply does not fulfil the direction given to him by the Court over the last few months. His Honour then dealt with some of the provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and said: I mention these matters because I think it must be fairly clear that although I must have regard to the doctrine that ordinary fairness means that people should be given the opportunity to prepare and present cases in the Land and Environment Court arising under Section 123 and Section 98, commonsense also dictates in my opinion that those people whose interests are challenged and who have consents which are impugned, or have made plans which are under threat, have the opportunity to respond to those allegations and that their opportunity to so respond depends upon the person bringing the challenge abiding by the directions given by the Court that the issues be prepared and established for determination. His Honour then said that in his opinion Mr Johnson had had 'every opportunity to prepare a case'. He took into account the fact that Mr Johnson was not a lawyer but he said the document that had been prepared simply did not permit the defendants to do other than to conclude that 'there might be something in his allegation but it would be impossible to determine with any degree of precision what it was that' Mr Johnson was saying. His Honour then said: This is the first time the Court has taken the step that I am proposing to take and I am bound to say I take it with great reluctance, but I have come to the conclusionthat the time has been reached where the Court simply should order that all these cases stand dismissed by reason of Mr Johnson's failure to comply with provisions and directions of the Court. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS This Court simply cannot function to provide a proper forum for the resolution of bona fide disputes unless the parties abide by the directions of the Court; the issues are identified and every person who is involved in the process gets an equal opportunity to respond to the allegations made by the other. In my opinion Mr Johnson has been given ample opportunity to present his cases and he has not availed himself of it. I think that fairness in the present case dictates that he, having been given that opportunity, his cases now stand dismissed and I order accordingly.' The application comes before this Court upon the summons in the ordinary way. The Court has before it a large document which is the document filed by Mr Johnson in performance of the judge's order in the matters, in which he purports to set out issues for determination in the Land and Environment Court. In my opinion there is nothing in the learned judge's decision which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal in the present case. I put aside the issue of time within which that application should have been made. I do not think that there appears any error in what the learned judge has done. Mr Johnson, who has appeared for himself, has been given some opportunity to indicate what the grounds for leave to appeal in the present case are and whether they are such as would warrant a grant of leave in the present case. The Court has on several occasions directed his attention to the main issues involved in this matter. I do not criticize Mr Johnson for his approach to the matter; he has been courteous in what he has said to the Court. But in the end the Court, after directing his attention to the matters at issue has finally taken the course ofdirecting that there be an end to what he is saying. The Court has stopped him in relation to the matter. In my opinion, it appears that he really has not been able to add anything additional to what appears in the document that is before the Court. Because of the circumstances of the case and in deference to Mr Johnson I have set out the context in which the present application falls to be dealt with. But in my opinion leave should not be granted. Meagher JA. I agree. Hope AJA. I agree. Mahoney JA. The order of the Court is that the application is dismissed. Orders accordingly.