Gorczynski v Leichhardt Municipal Council & Ors [2002] NSWLEC 72

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Gorczynski v Leichhardt Municipal Council & Ors [2002] NSWLEC 72 APPLICANT Peter Francis Gorczynski PARTIES : RESPONDENT Leichhardt Municipal Council & Ors FILE NUMBER(S) : 40012 of 2000 CORAM: Cowdroy J KEY ISSUES: Interlocutory Relief :- Directions LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 04/03/2002 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/04/2002

APPLICANT Mr D. Miller (Barrister)

SOLICITORS N/A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDANT Ms H Irish (Barrister)

SOLICITORS Pike Pike & Fenwick

JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND MATTER No. 40012 of 2000 ENVIRONMENT COURT CORAM: Cowdroy J OF NEW SOUTH WALES DECISION DATE: 04/03/02

Peter Francis Gorczynski Applicant v Leichhardt Municipal Council & Ors Respondents JUDGMENT 1. In these proceedings an application is made for leave to file a second further amended application class 4. The application is opposed by the respondent. 2. Ms Irish who appears for Leichhardt Municipal Council ("the council") has pointed out several matters of alleged deficiency. They include, firstly, that the claim for the declarations in 13(a) and 13(b) will serve no purpose because the council's consent in respect of which relief is claimed has been surrendered. The council submits that the continuation of the proceedings in relation to such consent is a waste of time and money. 3. In addition, Ms Irish submits that paragraph 1 of the proposed amended application seeks a declaration simpliciter, and is therefore insufficient to attract the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, Ms Irish submits that paragraph 3(a) of the proposed amendment does not nominate the relevant standards. 4. These matters comprise the principal submissions of the council, and they may prove to be well founded. At this preliminary stage however the Court is simply unable to know whether the submissions of the council are valid. 5. In the circumstances, the Court will allow the amendments, noting that the proposed short minutes of order will require the applicant to provide particulars in support of its claims. If those particulars do not demonstrate an arguable claim in relation to any of the matters foreshadowed by the council, it will be entitled to apply to have the proceedings struck out with costs. Those costs may include indemnity costs if the claims are found to be beyond jurisdiction or are otherwise vexatious. 6. The Court therefore grants leave for the second further amended application to be filed. **********