Hijazi v Canterbury City Council (No 1) [2007] NSWLEC 393

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Hijazi v Canterbury City Council (No 1) [2007] NSWLEC 393

APPLICANT Ghassan Hijazi PARTIES : RESPONDENT Canterbury City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 60002 of 2007

CORAM: Jagot J

KEY ISSUES: Appeal :- application leave to rely on fresh evidence - whether leave in interests of justice - leave refused

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

DATES OF HEARING: 14/6/07

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 14 June 2007

APPLICANT Ghassan Hijazi (in person) SOLICITORS N/A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr D Jordan SOLICITORS Pike Pike & Fenwick

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Jagot J

14 June 2007

60002 of 2007

GHASSAN HIJAZI Applicant

CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL Respondent

JUDGMENT Jagot J: 1 This is an application for leave by the appellant to rely upon fresh evidence in these proceedings. The evidence, as I understand it, would be sworn testimony from the appellant about certain discussions that he had with Mr Jauncey, Council officer, whose evidence was tendered as Exhibit 1 before the Magistrate in the Local Court.

2 According to s 37(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, Fresh evidence may be given, but only by leave of the Land and Environment Court which may be granted only if the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the fresh evidence be given. 3 This case came before me on 20 April 2007, at which time the appellant appeared. I fixed the proceedings for hearing and made a direction that the appellant was to file and serve a notice of motion seeking leave to call fresh evidence, including the fresh evidence, by 27 April 2007, with the return date for this notice of motion to be 4 May 2007 before the List Judge. However, no notice of motion seeking leave to call fresh evidence was filed and served, and the respondent, but not the appellant, appeared before Lloyd J on 4 May 2007. The Court noted at that time that the appellant had not filed and served any notice of motion for leave to call fresh evidence in accordance with the directions I made, and ordered the hearing date of 14 June 2007 be confirmed and the appeal be by way of a re-hearing on the evidence given in the original Local Court proceedings. The Court also directed the respondent to notify the appellant of these orders. Additionally, on 7 May 2007, the Court forwarded copies of the orders to both parties.