Supreme Court of Norfolk Island
Ryan v Norfolk Island Regional Council [2026] NFSC 2
File number: | SCA 1 of 2025 |
Judgment of: | WIGNEY J |
Date of judgment: | 20 August 2026 |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by appellant seeking an order that the respondent resubmit their written submissions in pending appeal of decision of Norfolk Island Court of Petty Sessions – application dismissed – costs ordered |
Number of paragraphs: | 8 |
Date of hearing: | The application was decided on the papers |
Counsel for the Appellant: | The appellant was self-represented |
Solicitor for the Respondent: | Mr G Timbs of Gadens |
ORDERS
SCA 1 of 2025 | ||
| ||
BETWEEN: | ROBERT TERRENCE RYAN Appellant | |
AND: | NORFOLK ISLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent | |
order made by: | WIGNEY J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 20 August 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appellant’s application in proceeding dated 11 February 2026 be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WIGNEY J:
1 The appellant, Mr Robert Terrence Ryan, has appealed a decision of the Norfolk Island Court of Petty Sessions granting judgment in favour of the respondent, the Norfolk Island Regional Council, for unpaid rates and charges. Both Mr Ryan and the Council have filed written submissions in respect of the appeal and have agreed that the appeal is to be determined on the papers.
2 By an application in proceeding dated 11 February 2026, Mr Ryan sought an order requiring the Council to resubmit its written submissions with “proper coverage of the legal basis upon which it claims to be an entity with the power of taxation, including reference to all and any legislation that defined, described, created and empowered the [Council] in this regard”.
3 Mr Ryan’s application is misconceived and without merit. That is so for several reasons.
4 First, it is not for Mr Ryan to dictate what should or should not be in the Council’s written submissions.
5 Second, Mr Ryan’s application is premised on the erroneous contention that the Council somehow bears the onus of establishing, on appeal, the validity of the legislation upon which the Council relied in levying the rates and charges in question. In fact, Mr Ryan bears the onus of establishing error in the judgment under appeal. If he wishes to contend in the appeal that the Council had no valid legislative or other legal basis for levying the rates and charges, and that the Court of Petty Sessions erred in concluding otherwise, he bears the onus of establishing that to be the case.
6 Third, the Council has in any event adequately identified what it contends to be the legal and legislative basis of its claim for outstanding rates and charges, both in documents filed in the Court below and in its written submissions in respect of the appeal. If Mr Ryan wants to contend on appeal that the legislation that has been identified by the Council does not provide a legal basis for its levying of rates and charges on him, or that the legislation is invalid for some reason, he can do so. There is no basis whatsoever for his contention that the Council is required to provide him with any further information concerning the basis of the claim for rates and charges which is the subject of the judgment under appeal.
7 It follows that Mr Ryan’s application in proceeding must be dismissed.
8 Mr Ryan submitted that the Council should pay his costs of the application given that the costs involved in the Council resubmitting its written submissions would have been less than the costs incurred in respect of this application. That submission erroneously assumes that there was a proper basis for Mr Ryan to seek to compel the Council to resubmit its written submissions. There was not. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. Mr Ryan will accordingly be ordered to pay the Council’s costs of the application.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Wigney. |
Associate:
Dated: 20 August 2026
