Shellharbour City Council v Stewart [2008] NSWLEC 69

Shellharbour City Council v Stewart [2008] NSWLEC 69

Because assessment of the credit of Mr Holstein appeared important to the outcome of the case, the Court declined to entertain the respondents' applications for judgment for want of evidence unless the respondents elected not to call any evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Alleging Councillors Breached S 664 of the Local Government Act 1993 by Disclosing Confidential Council Information / Applications by Respondents for Judgment for Want of Evidence Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 29 R 10 at the Conclusion of the Council's Case
Outcome
The Court declined to entertain the respondents' applications unless the moving parties elect not to call any evidence.
Legal Topics
['judgment for Want of Evidence' 'no Case to Answer Submission' 'election Not to Call Evidence' 'assessment of Witness Credit' 'confidential Council Information']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'local Government'] ['judgment for Want of Evidence' 'no Case to Answer Submission' 'election Not to Call Evidence' 'assessment of Witness Credit' 'confidential Council Information']

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

Proceedings Alleging Councillors Breached S 664 of the Local Government Act 1993 by Disclosing Confidential Council Information / Applications by Respondents for Judgment for Want of Evidence Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 29 R 10 at the Conclusion of the Council's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should entertain the respondents' applications for judgment for want of evidence unless the respondents elect not to call evidence." 'Whether an election should be required where the Court is required to assess the credit of a witness.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because assessment of the credit of Mr Holstein appeared important to the outcome of the case, the Court declined to entertain the respondents' applications for judgment for want of evidence unless the respondents elected not to call any evidence.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to entertain the respondents' applications unless the moving parties elect not to call any evidence.

Orders

  • []