Horton v Palerang Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 229

Horton v Palerang Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 229

The application was struck out because the applicant's grievance was a request for an account of rates, charges and payments and did not identify any rate or charge to which the land was not liable under s 574(1) of the Local Government Act 1993; therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction. In any event, if s 574 were engaged, the application filed on 8 May 2012 was not made within 30 days after service of the rates and charges notice and the Court had no power to extend that time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Application Described as an Appeal Pursuant to S 574 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Application
Outcome
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['class 3 Jurisdiction' 'appeal Against Rates and Charges' 'strike Out for Want of Jurisdiction' 'time Limit Under S 574(3) of the Local Government Act 1993' 'costs Against Self Represented Litigant']
['procedure' 'costs' 'local Government'] ['class 3 Jurisdiction' 'appeal Against Rates and Charges' 'strike Out for Want of Jurisdiction' 'time Limit Under S 574(3) of the Local Government Act 1993' 'costs Against Self Represented Litigant']

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

Class 3 Application Described as an Appeal Pursuant to S 574 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim under s 574 of the Local Government Act 1993." 'Whether, if s 574 was engaged, the application was commenced within the 30 day period required by s 574(3) of the Local Government Act 1993.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs despite the proceeding being in Class 3."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck out because the applicant's grievance was a request for an account of rates, charges and payments and did not identify any rate or charge to which the land was not liable under s 574(1) of the Local Government Act 1993; therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction. In any event, if s 574 were engaged, the application filed on 8 May 2012 was not made within 30 days after service of the rates and charges notice and the Court had no power to extend that time.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Strike out the application filed on 8 May 2012 for want of jurisdiction.' "The applicant must pay the respondent's costs." 'Exhibits may be returned.']