Malifa v Georges River Council [2019] NSWCA 139

Malifa v Georges River Council [2019] NSWCA 139

Leave to appeal was refused because nothing in the material established any reason to grant leave from the consent orders: there was no evidence that the Church was coerced into consenting, did not understand the orders, or lacked time to consider them; the primary judge ensured Mr Malifa understood the orders were against the Church and offered an opportunity to confer; and no argument was advanced in relation to the costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal From Land and Environment Court Class 4 Consent Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Consent Orders' 'prevention Notices' 'offensive Noise' 'commencement of Proceedings by Corporations' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['leave to Appeal From Consent Orders' 'prevention Notices' 'offensive Noise' 'commencement of Proceedings by Corporations' 'costs']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal From Land and Environment Court Class 4 Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from consent orders made in the Land and Environment Court.' 'Whether there was evidence that the Church was coerced into consenting to the orders or did not understand or have time to consider them.' 'Whether the Church had validly commenced or joined the appeal proceedings in compliance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether any basis was advanced for leave to appeal against the costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because nothing in the material established any reason to grant leave from the consent orders: there was no evidence that the Church was coerced into consenting, did not understand the orders, or lacked time to consider them; the primary judge ensured Mr Malifa understood the orders were against the Church and offered an opportunity to confer; and no argument was advanced in relation to the costs order.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal.' "Order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs."]