Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council & Ors; Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 228

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council & Ors; Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 228

Applicant did not prosecute the proceedings with due dispatch, failed to appear or comply with directions, and no substantial steps were taken towards resolving the real issues. Having regard to the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and relevant rules, both proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge / Class 4 Environment and Planning / Application for Dismissal Under Rule 12.7, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005; Final Orders
Outcome
Proceedings 40986 of 2008 and 40517 of 2010 both dismissed for want of prosecution; applicant to pay respondents’ costs; costs orders and notice requirements specified.
Legal Topics
['dismissal for Want of Due Dispatch' 'costs' 'procedural Fairness']
['civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['dismissal for Want of Due Dispatch' 'costs' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge / Class 4 Environment and Planning / Application for Dismissal Under Rule 12.7, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant prosecuted the proceedings with due dispatch under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005' 'Whether proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution' 'Consequences of dismissal including costs and limitation issues for future proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant did not prosecute the proceedings with due dispatch, failed to appear or comply with directions, and no substantial steps were taken towards resolving the real issues. Having regard to the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and relevant rules, both proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Proceedings 40986 of 2008 and 40517 of 2010 both dismissed for want of prosecution; applicant to pay respondents’ costs; costs orders and notice requirements specified.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings 40986 of 2008 is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings including any reserved costs (40986 of 2008)." 'The first respondent serve on the applicant a copy of these orders together with a copy of these reasons and an explanatory letter within 24 hours of entry of these...