Fleet v Blacktown City Council [2010] NSWLEC 39

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Fleet v Blacktown City Council [2010] NSWLEC 39

APPLICANT PARTIES : Dr Robert Fleet RESPONDENT Blacktown City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 4100 of 2009

CORAM: Pain J

KEY ISSUES: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- whether summons should be dismissed because no cause of action disclosed - whether vexatious proceedings order should be made

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 13.4 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 s 8

CASES CITED: Dr Robert Fleet v Public Trustee & Ors (No 2), NSWSC, Palmer J, 18 December 2008 (unpublished)

DATES OF HEARING: 26 February 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 26 February 2010

APPLICANT In person LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P Kelso (solicitor) SOLICITORS Bartier Perry

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Pain J

26 February 2010

4100 of 2009 Fleet v Blacktown City Council

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1 Her Honour: Two Notices of Motion are listed before me today as duty judge. The first motion was filed by the Applicant on 19 February 2010 and seeks various orders which largely mirror the orders for relief that he seeks in his summons filed on 18 December 2009. The Applicant represented himself. The Respondent Blacktown City Council (the Council) was represented by its solicitor, Mr Kelso.

2 Also before me is a Notice of Motion filed by the Council's solicitor, Mr Kelso, which seeks an order (prayer 1) that the summons be dismissed as no reasonable cause of action is disclosed pursuant to r 13.4(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (the UCPR) and also in prayer 3 that the Applicant be prohibited from instituting any proceedings in this Court against the Council without the prior leave of a judge of this Court as provided by s 8(c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. Ex parte hearing 3 I note for the record that the Applicant addressed the Court at the outset. In the course of seeking an adjournment for the hearing of the motions he decided that he would leave the precinct of the Court. I adjourned the matter briefly so that my associate had the opportunity to go and ask him if he wished to return. He did not to return. Following that development, Mr Kelso, appearing for the Council today, made an application that the Council's motion be heard on an ex parte basis.