NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Wollongong City Council v Ensile Pty Limited; Wollongong City Council v Hogarth (No 7) [2008] NSWLEC 202 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
Wollongong City Council (Prosecutor) PARTIES : Ensile Pty Limited (Defendant) Robert Martin (aka Bob) Hogarth (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : 50019; 50021; 50047; 50048 of 2007
CORAM: Jagot J
KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- prosecutor's application for leave to adduce evidence in reply with respect to defence of existing use rights - whether prosecution could reasonably have foreseen the details of the defendants' defence - whether special or exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the granting of leave - no special or exceptional circumstances - unfairness to defendants if leave granted - prosecution aware of the nature of the defendants' defence in 2007 - motion dismissed
LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Killick v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 565 CASES CITED: Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365 The Queen v Chin (1984) 157 CLR 671 Wollongong City Council v Ensile Pty Limited; Wollongong City Council v Hogarth (No 4) [2008] NSWLEC 149
DATES OF HEARING: 27 June 2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 27 June 2008
PROSECUTOR Mr Matthew Fraser SOLICITORS Kells the Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: DEFENDANTS Mr T G Howard SOLICITORS Burrell Solicitors
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate