Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Martin v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2012] NSWLEC 214 Hearing dates: 31 August 2012 Decision date: 31 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 8 Before: Pain J Decision: The Court: 1. Orders that any application for costs is to be dealt with on the papers by written submissions to be lodged with the Court. 2. Directs that the Crown's written submissions must be filed on or before 14 September 2012. 3. Directs that Mr Martin's written submissions must be filed on or before 28 September 2012. 4. Directs the Crown to advise Mr Martin of today's orders. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - application for costs can be determined by written submissions Cases Cited: Martin v The State of New South Wales [2012] NSWLEC 182 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Anthony Gilbert Martin (Applicant) State of New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: No appearance (Applicant) Mr A Baril (solicitor) (Respondent) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 80001 of 2011 EX TEMPORE Judgment 1In Martin v The State of New South Wales [2012] NSWLEC 182 Lloyd AJ made a declaration that the refusal of exploration licence 6949 published in the NSW Government Gazette No 135 on 17 December 2010 was invalid and ordered the application be remitted to the Minister for Resources and Energy for consideration. Costs were reserved. Mr Martin, the Applicant, has represented himself throughout these proceedings. 2Mr Baril, solicitor for the Respondent (the Crown), in a letter to the Registrar dated 23 August 2012 (copied to the Applicant by email) suggested the matter of costs could be determined by way of written submissions so there would be no need for a further hearing. Mr Baril wrote to Mr Martin on 6 August 2012 seeking his views on this approach but received no response. In the absence of any agreement by the parties, the Crown asked that the Court determine how the matter should proceed on the outstanding issue of costs. Consequently, the Registrar listed the matter for directions before me as the list judge on 31 August 2012, today, and advised the parties. 3There was no appearance by Mr Martin today. Mr Martin sent an email dated 23 August 2012 to the Court stating: 1 .Reference is made to the e-mail from Crown Solicitor on this matter, which I received a few minutes ago. 2. Please note that the writer does not agree to the issue of reserved cost being determined as per the submission of the Crown Solicitor. 3. Cost were reserved on the basis that "Since Mr Martin was partially successful, it is appropriate that the question of cost be reserved". I have copied out the concluding paragraph of His Honour's reasoning of the 3' of August 2012 on this matter. 4. Notice is hereby given that the said decision of His Honour will be appealed against to the NSWSCA within the 28 days time limit. A notice of intention to appeal is proposed to be filed on or around the 27 of August 2012. 4As I considered that the more usual course of holding an oral hearing ought be followed in the absence of Mr Martin, I directed the matter be set down for hearing in the week commencing 24 September 2012. In the interests of justice I thought it appropriate to give Mr Martin the opportunity to have an oral hearing. The registry rang Mr Martin to obtain his consent for the matter being listed that week. Such consent was not forthcoming. He is expressing great reluctance to identify a date when he is available for that hearing in a week convenient to the Court. Mr Baril again mentioned the matter before me today and renewed his oral application that in the absence of consent by the Applicant to a hearing date, the matter be determined by way of written submissions. 5I consider that Mr Martin has been given the opportunity to have an oral argument on costs. As this was not availed of, it is in the interests of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the outstanding question of costs that it be dealt with on the papers as the Crown has sought. I will make an order to that effect. 6Which judge will determine the matter is yet to be resolved. I can make a timetable today for the filing of written submissions by the parties. The Court will allocate the matter to an appropriate judge. Orders 7The Court: 1. Orders that any application for costs is to be dealt with on the papers by written submissions to be lodged with the Court. 2. Directs that the Crown's written submissions must be filed on or before 14 September 2012. 3. Directs that the Mr Martin's written submissions must be filed on or before 28 September 2012. 4. Directs the Crown to advise Mr Martin of today's orders. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 September 2012