Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : North Sydney Council v O'Hara [2000] NSWLEC 83 APPLICANT North Sydney Council PARTIES : RESPONDENT O'Hara FILE NUMBER(S) : 40119 of 1999 CORAM: Cowdroy J KEY ISSUES: Orders :- Application for extension of time for compliance with orders LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 31/3/00 EX TEMPORE 03/31/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : APPLICANT Ms S Duggan SOLICITORS Mallesons Stephen Jaques LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT In person SOLICITORS n/a JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND MATTER No. 40119 of 1999 ENVIRONMENT COURT CORAM: Cowdroy J OF NEW SOUTH WALES DECISION DATE: 31/3/00 North Sydney Council Applicant v O'Hara Respondent JUDGMENT 1. In this matter the Court, on 29 November 1999, made orders and declarations concerning the carrying out of work which was necessary at the applicant's premises. The history concerning that work and of previous orders is set out in the judgment of the court delivered on 29 November 1999. 2. To enable the applicant in the motion, that is the respondent to the proceedings, Ms O'Hara, a final opportunity to carry out the work of her own volition rather than have the council cause the work to be done, the Court postponed orders from 29 November until 15 April 2000. The Court also ordered that in the event the respondent sought to extend the time for compliance she was required to file a notice of motion by 1 March 2000. Ms O'Hara filed a notice of motion on 1 March 2000 seeking an extension of time. The evidence discloses that since 29 November 1999 she has undertaken a great amount of work in endeavouring to obtain quotations for the work and to have the work carried out. An exercise book has been tendered in evidence which deals with her efforts since that date. 3. Currently the position is that no alteration has taken place to the physical structure of the building, that is no work has been undertaken. The position also is that whilst various quotations have been sought and received, the only quotation which has been accepted is one which is dated 24 December 1999 provided by Dixon Roofing Pty Limited. 4. When asked why that quotation has not been acted upon Ms O'Hara has explained that she wished to undertake work to the verandah before work to the roof is carried out. There is no evidence of any quotations having been accepted for any of that work. 5. Ms O'Hara has explained that she is in a position to afford to have the work carried out, as she says, at the lowest quotes. Accordingly the Court can conclude there is no financial reason why the work has not been carried out. Rather it has been because of her best efforts to secure tradesmen to do the work have failed. The exercise book details those attempts with particularity. For this reason Ms O'Hara seeks a further 3 months extension in which she hopes to be able to carry out the work. 6. Had some effort been made to have some of the work done by this date, leaving some of it unfulfilled, the Court may have been minded to extend the time for compliance. However, despite the four months that has elapsed since the Court made its orders granting latitude to Ms O'Hara, no work on the site has been done. Ms O'Hara has used, as she says, her best efforts to obtain tradesmen and it has caused her a great deal of stress. The fact remains that she has been unsuccessful in having any of the work carried out. 7. I am satisfied that a further three months extension will not achieve any different position, and that it will be futile to grant the extension sought. Accordingly the Court dismisses the motion of Ms O'Hara, that is the respondent in proceedings number 48119 of 1999. The exhibits may be returned. 8. In this matter the council has asked for costs against Ms O'Hara. Ms O'Hara being self represented has informed the court that she is not in a position to deal with the question of costs. The court therefore orders that the question of costs be stood over to a date to be fixed upon application to 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.