Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2010] NSWLEC 229

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2010] NSWLEC 229

APPLICANT Ivan Jeray PARTIES : RESPONDENT Blue Mountains City Council

FILE NUMBER(S) : 40517 of 2010

CORAM: Craig J

KEY ISSUES: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- self-represented applicant – applicant's motion for contempt fixed for hearing – afternoon prior to hearing applicant informed Registrar that he would not attend due to "medical condition" – medical certificate states applicant is "unfit for work" – insufficient details of medical condition provided – notice of motion stood over– further details of medical condition required if applicant claims to be unable to attend future hearing

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government Act 1993

DATES OF HEARING: 5 November 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 5 November 2010

APPLICANT No Appearance LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT I J Hemmings (Barrister) SOLICITORS Marsdens Law Group

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CRAIG J

5 November 2010

40517 of 2010 JERAY v BLUE MOUNTAINS CITY COUNCIL

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Mr Ivan Jeray, the applicant in the proceedings, is a self-represented litigant. His principal proceedings seek orders to the effect that Blue Mountains City Council has breached various provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 by its failure to provide access to documents which Mr Jeray claims should be made available to him for inspection. That summary does not reflect the detail of his claim but is sufficient for present purposes. 2 On 1 October 2010, Mr Jeray filed a notice of motion seeking orders to the effect that the Council is in contempt of court. His allegations of contempt appear to be founded upon the Council's response to a Notice to Produce served upon it by Mr Jeray for the purpose of preparing his case for hearing. 3 On 8 October, Mr Jeray's notice of motion for contempt was fixed for hearing today. At the time at which the hearing was fixed, Mr Jeray was present in Court and accepted the hearing date as being suitable to him. 4 On Monday last, 1 November, Mr Jeray applied to me as Duty Judge to have today's hearing vacated. For reasons then given, I refused his application. In summary, Mr Jeray claimed that his preparation for the hearing today was prejudiced because the Council had not served the affidavit evidence upon which it relied by the date fixed for it so to do as required by directions made by Pepper J on 8 October last. I did not accept that the Council had failed to comply with the direction given for the filing of its affidavit evidence and so refused his application. 5 Having refused the application, I made further directions for preparation of the matter for hearing. Those directions attempted to accommodate Mr Jeray's requirement for further documents to be provided to him by the Council and I extended until 4.00pm yesterday the time by which he should file any affidavit in reply to the Council's evidence.