NIX v PITTWATER COUNCIL SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL GLEESON CJ, PRIESTLEY JA and POWELL JA 15 August 1995 [1995] NSWCA 322 Gleeson CJ. We have before us this morning two motions arising out of an appeal that was heard by this court some time ago and determined on 16 August 1994. The appeal was from the decision of Bannon J in the Land and Environment Court. The background to the dispute between the parties to the appeal is complicated and I do not intend to say anything by way of summary of the relevant facts. It suffices to say that following the hearing before Bannon J in the Land and Environment Court his Honour made lengthy and complex orders to give effect to his judgment. This court on the appeal partly agreed and partly disagreed with what Bannon J did and, having delivered our reasons for judgment, we left it to the parties to prepare and bring in short minutes of order to give effect to our reasons for judgment. Some months elapsed, and on 13 April 1995 the parties, by consent, handed up to the court short minutes of orders which they agreed reflected thejudgment of this court or, more accurately, the judgment of Bannon J as modified by the judgment of this court. Those orders have never been formally entered. Counsel for the Pittwater Council in support of the Council's motion before the court today has submitted that, as a result of inadvertence on the part of those representing the Council, there were certain omissions of a material nature from the Minutes of Order. We have been presented, in the form of an annexure to an affidavit of Jane Margaret Jagot dated 31 May 1995, with alternative Short Minutes of Order which, it is said, rectify that inadvertence and give effect to the judgment of this court and the judgment of Bannon J to the extent to which it was not modified by the judgment of this court. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the orders made by consent on 13 April 1995 did not accurately reflect the judgment of Bannon J as modified by the judgment of this court. lam also satisfied that that was the result of inadvertence on the part of at least one of the parties and, the court having jurisdiction to do so, I would propose that the court should withdraw the orders made by consent on 13 April 1995 and substitute therefore orders in terms of the document annexed to the affidavit of Jane Margaret Jagot of 31 May 1995. We also have before us a motion by Mr Nix who is appearing unrepresented. The substance of that motion relates to certain events that occurred since this court gave its reasons for judgment on 16 August 1994. The nature of this longstanding and ongoing dispute is such that it may well be that events will occur that will affect the rights of the parties as declared by the order of this court and make it necessary or appropriate for one or other of the parties to make further application to the Land and Environment Court in 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS relation to the working out of the orders or any other respects relating to the rights of the parties the subject of this litigation. I would have no doubt that the Land and Environment Court would have jurisdiction to deal with such issues as they arise although insofar as it may be necessary to do so this court should order, and I propose that it would order, that the matter be remitted to the Land and Environment Court for any further resolution of issues arising since the making of this court's orders. It would be an inappropriate deployment of the scarce judicial resources of this State for the ongoing dispute between Mr Nix and the Pittwater Council to be presided over by three judges of appeal. In relation to the matter of costs, I do not think it is appropriate for this court in the circumstances to make any order as to costs either concerning the motion of the Pittwater Council or concerning the motion of Mr Nix. I would propose the court make no orders as to the costs of today's motions or as to the costs of the proceedings before a single judge of this court in July of this year. Priestley JA. I agree with the Chief Justice. Powell JA. I also agree. Gleeson CJ. The orders of the court are as I proposed. Orders accordingly.