Director General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 196

Director General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 196

The offences were serious and the first, second and third defendants could not obtain legal representation by the fixed trial dates because of changed financial circumstances and their solicitor's notice of intention to cease acting; the Court was not prepared to find that their lack of representation was due to fault disentitling them to postponement. The interests of justice favoured all proceedings remaining together, despite stress and expense to Mr Coomes, to avoid duplication, inconvenience to witnesses and the risks associated with separate trials. The delays of the first, second and third defendants caused Mr Coomes to incur non-refundable accommodation costs and made the second...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings in Class 5 of the Land and Environment Court's Jurisdiction / Application by the First, Second and Third Defendants to Postpone Joint Trials Fixed for 11 29 October 2010
Outcome
The hearing dates were vacated; all trials were postponed; the first, second and third defendants were ordered to pay specified costs of the fourth defendant.
Legal Topics
['adjournment or Postponement of Trial' 'unrepresented Accused' 'joint Trials' 'legal Aid' 'costs on Adjournment']
['criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'fisheries Law'] ['adjournment or Postponement of Trial' 'unrepresented Accused' 'joint Trials' 'legal Aid' 'costs on Adjournment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings in Class 5 of the Land and Environment Court's Jurisdiction / Application by the First, Second and Third Defendants to Postpone Joint Trials Fixed for 11 29 October 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trials of Mato Investments Pty Ltd, Ian Charles Bennett and Dzeladin Ceman should be postponed because they were unable to afford legal representation by the fixed trial dates due to changed financial circumstances.' 'Whether the trial of James Lawrence Coomes should nevertheless proceed separately on the allocated dates.' 'Whether the first, second and third defendants should pay costs incurred by James Lawrence Coomes because of the postponement application and vacated hearing dates.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious and the first, second and third defendants could not obtain legal representation by the fixed trial dates because of changed financial circumstances and their solicitor's notice of intention to cease acting; the Court was not prepared to find that their lack of representation was due to fault disentitling them to postponement. The interests of justice favoured all proceedings remaining together, despite stress and expense to Mr Coomes, to avoid duplication, inconvenience to witnesses and the risks associated with separate trials. The delays of the first, second and third defendants caused Mr Coomes to incur non-refundable accommodation costs and made the second...

Court Disposition

The hearing dates were vacated; all trials were postponed; the first, second and third defendants were ordered to pay specified costs of the fourth defendant.

Orders

  • ['The hearing dates of 11-29 October are vacated.' 'The first, second and third defendants are to pay the sum of $2,385 for non-refundable accommodation costs of the fourth defendant.' 'The first, second and third defendants are to pay the costs of their notices of motion filed on 30 September 2010.' 'The exhibits...