Fokas v Kogarah City Council and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 98

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Fokas v Kogarah City Council and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 98

APPLICANT Maria Fokas PARTIES : FIRST RESPONDENT Kogarah City Council SECOND RESPONDENT Energy Australia

FILE NUMBER(S) : 40007 of 2008

CORAM: Pain J

KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- whether power to set aside final order of judge dismissing a class 4 application

Electricity Supply Act 1995 LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 36 r36.15, r36.16

Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529 CASES CITED: DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 Fokas v Kogarah Council & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 74

DATES OF HEARING: 3 March 2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 3 March 2008

APPLICANT In person FIRST RESPONDENT Ms C Schofield (solicitor) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SOLICITOR Pike Pike and Fenwick SECOND RESPONDENT Mr A Galasso SC SOLICITOR Clayton Utz

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Pain J

3 March 2008

40007 of 2008 Fokas v Kogarah City Council and Anor

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1 Her Honour: A Notice of Motion has been filed by the Applicant, Mrs Fokas, seeking orders that a decision of Lloyd J made on 1 February 2008 be set aside. His Honour handed down an ex tempore judgment, Fokas v Kogarah Council & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 74, and made an order perfected on that day that the Applicant's Class 4 application be dismissed and that the Applicant pay costs. The Notice of Motion before me today seeks orders that the decision be set aside and the Class 4 application continue with further directions. The motion identifies the grounds as a failure by Lloyd J to consider all the parts of an affidavit filed by her in the proceedings and that there is a failure to comply with some provisions of the Electricity Supply Act 1995. I note this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with issues under that Act. In a further affidavit which is the Applicant's submissions, which I allowed to be filed in Court today, additional matters are raised concerning her assertion that the development in issue is designated development and therefore she has appeal rights as an objector, and that notification as procedures required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were not correctly followed, inter alia.