Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2009] NSWLEC 90

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2009] NSWLEC 90

The Court was not persuaded that it was unreasonable to maintain the hearing date of 13 July 2009, which was still more than two weeks away, or to make the applicant's proposed new directions. The Court made limited directions for identification and production of documents, permitted filing and service of specified documents by 6 July 2009, granted leave to issue the subpoenas with $25 per person per day as sufficient conduct money, but declined to require an affidavit from the first respondent that all documents and files sought had been provided or produced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Land and Environment Court Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Interlocutory Directions, Hearing Date, Production and Subpoenas
Outcome
Notice of motion granted in part and refused in part; hearing date not vacated.
Legal Topics
['vacating Hearing Date' 'litigant in Person' 'directions' 'notice to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'conduct Money']
['practice and Procedure'] ['vacating Hearing Date' 'litigant in Person' 'directions' 'notice to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'conduct Money']

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

Notice of Motion in Land and Environment Court Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Interlocutory Directions, Hearing Date, Production and Subpoenas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date fixed for 13 July 2009 should be vacated and a new hearing date fixed on 3 August 2009.' "Whether directions or changes to directions should be made concerning production of documents, additional points of claim, declarations and orders, and an amended index to the applicant's bundle." 'Whether the applicant should have leave to issue subpoenas to council staff to attend to give evidence, and what conduct money should be sufficient.' 'Whether the first respondent should be ordered to provide an affidavit indicating that all documents and files sought by the applicant had been provided or produced.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not persuaded that it was unreasonable to maintain the hearing date of 13 July 2009, which was still more than two weeks away, or to make the applicant's proposed new directions. The Court made limited directions for identification and production of documents, permitted filing and service of specified documents by 6 July 2009, granted leave to issue the subpoenas with $25 per person per day as sufficient conduct money, but declined to require an affidavit from the first respondent that all documents and files sought had been provided or produced.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion granted in part and refused in part; hearing date not vacated.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to serve the respondents with a letter on or before 5 pm on 30 June 2009 identifying where the documents referred to in items 1 to 6 of the council's notice to produce are located in his filed bundle of documents or affidavits." 'By consent of the applicant and the first respondent, all documents...