Kevin Roy Jacobs v Hurstville City Council [2009] NSWCA 86

Kevin Roy Jacobs v Hurstville City Council [2009] NSWCA 86

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because none disclosed reasonable prospects of success: the procedural fairness complaint failed in light of the notice and circumstances of the hearing, the Lot 160 misdescription was a minor error that did not prevent identification of the land, and the third summons added no basis beyond the rejected procedural fairness complaint.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Land and Environment Court in a Class 4 Matter / Determination of Three Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['local Government Act Notice Under S 124' 'orders Under S 678 of the Local Government Act 1993 (nsw)' 'procedural Fairness' 'application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'contempt Motion' 'slip Rule' 'leave to Appeal']
['local Government' 'civil Procedure' 'land and Environment'] ['local Government Act Notice Under S 124' 'orders Under S 678 of the Local Government Act 1993 (nsw)' 'procedural Fairness' 'application to Vacate Hearing Date' 'contempt Motion' 'slip Rule' 'leave to Appeal']

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 for Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Land and Environment Court in a Class 4 Matter / Determination of Three Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Land and Environment Court denied procedural fairness by proceeding with the Council's application under s 678 on 5 August 2008" 'Whether a misdescription of the lot number in the orders provided a reasonable basis for leave to appeal' 'Whether material said to be available to Mr Jacobs but not tendered gave rise to reasonable prospects of success on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because none disclosed reasonable prospects of success: the procedural fairness complaint failed in light of the notice and circumstances of the hearing, the Lot 160 misdescription was a minor error that did not prevent identification of the land, and the third summons added no basis beyond the rejected procedural fairness complaint.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['In relation to each summons, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']