Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 13) [2013] NSWLEC 80

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 13) [2013] NSWLEC 80 Hearing dates: 29 May 2013 Decision date: 29 May 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Pepper J Decision: Application to adjourn proceedings refused. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: application to adjourn proceedings on medical grounds - medical certificate inadequate - application refused. Cases Cited: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 218

Palerang Council v Banfield [2012] NSWLEC 85 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Lane Cove Council (Applicant) Mr Raymond Ross (Respondent) Representation: Mr N Eastman (Applicant) Mr R Ross (in person) (Respondent) Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) N/A (Respondent) File Number(s): 40628 of 2012

Ex Tempore Judgment

Mr Ross Again Applies to Adjourn the Proceedings Due to Ill Health 1At 2 pm today (the last day of three day part-heard Class 4 proceedings), Mr Ross made another application to adjourn these proceedings on the grounds of a medical condition. On this occasion he relied upon the doctor's certificate of Dr Kian Yan Sim practising from St Leonards. The medical certificate states that "Mr Raymond Ross is receiving medical treatment and for the period 29/05/2013 to 30/05/2013 inclusive he will be unfit to attend a courtcase while under the influence of medication". It is dated today. 2Again having regard to the principles in Palerang Council v Banfield [2012] NSWLEC 85 (at [10]-[12]) and Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 218 (at [9]-[11]), I do not consider this medical evidence to be sufficient to warrant the adjournment of these proceedings. The medical certificate does not specify the condition said to render Mr Ross to be unfit to attend the remainder of today's hearing in these proceedings, nor does it specify the nature of the medication and its effects. In addition, no explanation is given in the certificate as to the nexus between the unspecified medical condition Mr Ross is suffering from and his asserted inability to continue representing himself in these proceedings. 3Although from the bar table Mr Ross indicated that he was suffering from a migraine and that the medication he was taking was codeine and valium, absent cogent objective evidence verifying his claims, I do not accept his claims and I am unpersuaded that the proceedings should be adjourned. 4The application is refused. The exhibit is to be returned.