Fleet v Blacktown City Council [2010] NSWLEC 46

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Fleet v Blacktown City Council [2010] NSWLEC 46

APPLICANT Dr Robert Fleet PARTIES : RESPONDENT Blacktown City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 41000 of 2009

CORAM: Craig J

KEY ISSUES: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- vexatious litigant - whether a vexatious proceedings order should be set aside pursuant to s 9 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - applicant left the hearing before presentation of the case was completed - notice of motion dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

DATES OF HEARING: 22 March 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 22 March 2010

APPLICANT In person

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr D Loether (solicitor) SOLICITORS Bartier Perry

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Craig J

22 March 2010

09/41000 Dr Robert Fleet v Blacktown City Council

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By a summons filed in this Court on 18 December 2009, Dr Robert Fleet sought relief against Blacktown City Council (the Council) in the form of a number of orders pertaining to premises at 6 Sixth Avenue, Seven Hills, in the Sydney metropolitan area. The Council had granted development consent for the demolition of the dwelling erected on that land, that development consent having been granted on or about 2 October 2009. The applicant for that consent was Mr Vinodh Kumar Natarajn. It seems that the subject premises comprised a dwelling that had been owned by Dr Fleet's late mother. Upon the grant of probate of the will of Dr Fleet's late mother to the Public Trustee the premises were sold by the Trustee to Mr Natarajn and Ms Srinivasan. 2 The proceedings came before the Court on 26 February 2010 for determination of two notices of motion that were listed for hearing on that day before Justice Pain who was then sitting as the duty judge. The first was a Notice of Motion filed by Dr Fleet by which, in effect, he sought to have determined the substance of the proceedings which he had commenced in December last. The second Notice of Motion was filed by the Council and in which it sought two orders. The first order was one seeking dismissal of the proceedings on the basis either that there was no cause of action disclosed or that they were otherwise futile. 3 The basis upon which that order was sought related, amongst other things, to the fact that no evidence had been filed which demonstrated any legal basis for challenge to the validity of the Council's decision. More importantly, the evidence filed for the Council was that the dwelling which Dr Fleet's proceeding sought to preserve had already been demolished. That was the evidence of a Council officer who had inspected the premises on 7 January 2010. 4 As I have earlier indicated, the orders that were sought by Dr Fleet challenged the decision of the Council to consent to demolition and, importantly, sought relief by way of an injunction to restrain the Council or anybody else from acting upon the consent which would result in demolition of the dwelling.