Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council & Ors [2011] NSWCA 313

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council & Ors [2011] NSWCA 313

Each application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any arguable error in the challenged decisions or any sufficient utility in granting leave, particularly where the challenged orders were interlocutory or overtaken by later events; the respondents were awarded costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal Under S 58 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Court of Appeal Determination of Three Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'contempt of Court' 'notice to Produce' 'apprehended Bias' 'costs' 'procedural Fairness' 'interlocutory Orders' 'document Inspection']
['appeal' 'land and Environment' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'contempt of Court' 'notice to Produce' 'apprehended Bias' 'costs' 'procedural Fairness' 'interlocutory Orders' 'document Inspection']

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

Applications for Leave to Appeal Under S 58 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 / Court of Appeal Determination of Three Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from orders made by Craig J on 4 March 2011 concerning alleged contempt, apprehended bias and costs.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an order of Biscoe J on 8 April 2011 concerning reference to a fishing expedition, categorisation of documents, timetable orders, procedural fairness and costs.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an order of Craig J on 27 May 2011 concerning apprehended bias, document orders, amended points of claim and timetable directions.' 'Whether any arguable error or practical utility justified granting leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any arguable error in the challenged decisions or any sufficient utility in granting leave, particularly where the challenged orders were interlocutory or overtaken by later events; the respondents were awarded costs.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Matter No 2011/106643 - Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Applicant to pay respondent's costs of the application and the reserved costs of the stay application." "Matter No 2011/149208 - Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Applicant to pay respondent's costs of the application." "In Matter No...