Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Blacktown City Council v Wilkie and Ors [2001] NSWLEC 160 APPLICANT Blacktown City Council PARTIES : RESPONDENTS Wilkie and Ors FILE NUMBER(S) : 40025 of 2001 CORAM: Pearlman J KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- adjournment - litigant in person LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 10/07/2001 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 07/10/2001 APPLICANT Mr D R Parry (Barrister) SOLICITORS Houston Dearn O'Connor FIRST RESPONDENT in person LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SOLICITORS N/A SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS Mr R W Killalea (Barrister) SOLICITORS Low & Associates JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND 40025 of 2001 ENVIRONMENT COURT Pearlman J OF NEW SOUTH WALES 10 July 2001 BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL Applicant v MISTY WILKIE First Respondent MARK REID trading as GRAVEYARD RECYCLING and THE GRAVEYARD RECYCLING Second Respondent GRAVEYARD RECYCLING PTY LTD Third Respondent JUDGMENT 1. I deal with the question of whether or not I should grant an adjournment. That application has been made by the first respondent, Ms Wilkie, and supported by the second and third respondents. 2. I have a very serious concern about this matter from the evidence that I have seen. It may be, since I do not really have any evidence yet from the respondents, that my concerns might be alleviated, but I do not know that at this stage. I have had evidence now before me in the form of (a) a video and (b) a number of affidavits including photographs which show a mountain of material, as it has been described, on the land. I do not think it is unreasonable at this stage for me to draw the conclusion that there is a potential for environmental harm, even if there is not already actual environmental harm. 3. I am very concerned to have the matter heard so that appropriate orders can be made, and so that the Court can have the benefit of evidence from the first, second and third respondents which might assist the Court in a proper understanding of what has taken place. 4. I am also concerned about the fact that Ms Wilkie is unrepresented. These are serious matters. The orders that the Court can make if the council establishes its case - whether it can is another matter - but if it does, the Court can order the restoration of the land, the removal of the rubbish or material. Added to that there will be some cost, although I do not know what the cost is. If the applicant, the council, establishes its case, the obligation will be on the respondents, and if they do not obey the orders against them they will face proceedings for contempt of court. So the matter is serious. 5. The correspondence in exhibit M is addressed to Ms Wilkie by name at Pebble Pools and Spas, corner of Mulgoa Road, number 66, shop 2, 2 Preston Street, Penrith. I have in evidence a letter from her addressed to the solicitors for the council which states: "We wish to advise that all correspondence is not to be addressed to Pebble Pools and Spas. The name on the lease is Misty Wilkie. All correspondence is to be addressed to myself" . That is what these letters are, they are addressed to Misty Wilkie. 6. In all those circumstances I find it very hard to say that we should not proceed, and I have dwelt on the potential for environmental harm for this reason. But Ms Wilkie is unrepresented. 7. I will grant an adjournment but I wish to make it quite clear that I do so so that Ms Wilkie can take whatever advice she wants. She would be well advised to get legal representation, but whether or not she does that, she should at least be ready to go on on the next occasion. An adjournment today will mean that the case has been adjourned twice. I would be very reluctant to adjourn it again, so that I would expect that when another hearing date is set, the proceedings will go on, and the parties will be ready. I wanted to make all this clear for the record so that no further applications are made for adjournments. 8. I will adjourn the proceedings to a date to be fixed. I grant leave to the parties to seek appropriate dates from the Registrar. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.