Bennette v Byron Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 22

Bennette v Byron Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 22

The further adjournment application was refused because no grounds were provided, the application was made on the afternoon before a third listed hearing outside Sydney, significant court and party resources would be wasted, and the history of repeated listings made a further adjournment unacceptable. Once the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Class One Appeal / Ex Tempore Reasons on Application to Adjourn/vacate Hearing Dates and Respondent's Notice of Motion
Outcome
Adjournment refused; appeal discontinued; respondent's Notice of Motion dismissed as otiose; costs reserved with liberty to restore before the registrar on costs.
Legal Topics
['vacation of Hearing Dates' 'adjournment' 'discontinuance' 'costs Reserved']
['practice and Procedure' 'land and Environment'] ['vacation of Hearing Dates' 'adjournment' 'discontinuance' 'costs Reserved']

Source-derived case record

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 One Appeal / Ex Tempore Reasons on Application to Adjourn/vacate Hearing Dates and Respondent's Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing should be adjourned or vacated on the afternoon before a listed hearing outside Sydney.' "Whether the respondent's Notice of Motion should be dismissed after the applicant indicated the proceedings would be discontinued." 'Whether costs should be reserved following discontinuance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The further adjournment application was refused because no grounds were provided, the application was made on the afternoon before a third listed hearing outside Sydney, significant court and party resources would be wasted, and the history of repeated listings made a further adjournment unacceptable. Once the applicant formally discontinued the appeal, the respondent's Notice of Motion was otiose and was dismissed, with costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; appeal discontinued; respondent's Notice of Motion dismissed as otiose; costs reserved with liberty to restore before the registrar on costs.

Orders

  • ["The further application made by Mr Miller on the return of the respondent's Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2000 is refused." 'The Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2000 made returnable instanter before Talbot J at 2.00 pm and filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed.' 'The appeal is discontinued.' "The...