Joaquim v Adamson (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1367

Joaquim v Adamson (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 1367

The applicants had an adequate opportunity, through their barrister, to be heard on all relevant matters at the previous hearing, and did not avail themselves of that opportunity. The requirements for reopening a decision, as articulated in Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2), were not satisfied. Even if the application were entertained, it would be futile or inappropriate, as the respondent had already followed the process requested and removal was complete.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Open Orders / Notice of Motion to Revisit Previous Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment on Reopening Orders
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['removal of Trees' 'costs Orders' 'setting Aside or Varying Orders' 'discretion to Reopen Proceedings']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['removal of Trees' 'costs Orders' 'setting Aside or Varying Orders' 'discretion to Reopen Proceedings']

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

Application to Re Open Orders / Notice of Motion to Revisit Previous Orders; Ex Tempore Judgment on Reopening Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders made on 2 October 2009 regarding removal of the Hills Fig tree should be revisited or varied' 'Whether the applicants had a proper opportunity to be heard on the adverse orders' 'Appropriateness of using discretion to reopen the matter']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had an adequate opportunity, through their barrister, to be heard on all relevant matters at the previous hearing, and did not avail themselves of that opportunity. The requirements for reopening a decision, as articulated in Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2), were not satisfied. Even if the application were entertained, it would be futile or inappropriate, as the respondent had already followed the process requested and removal was complete.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion by Mr and Mrs Joaquim dismissed' 'Second Notice of Motion by Mr and Mrs Adamson (concerning costs) adjourned for hearing before the Acting Registrar on 11 November']