//
[2026] NSWLEC 26
General information, not legal advice.
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2026-03-13
Beasley J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Midwest Academy Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; Akkari v Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water [2026] NSWLEC 26
Hearing dates: 13 March 2026
Date of orders: 13 March 2026
Decision date: 13 March 2026
Jurisdiction: Class 6
Before: Beasley J
Decision: (1) That the Appellants' legal representatives, Macquarie Law Group, be granted leave to withdraw from acting as legal representatives for the Appellants.
(2) That the hearing date of 17 March 2026 be vacated.
(3) That the matter be set down for mention before Beasley J at 2:00pm on Thursday, 2 April 2026, with the expectation that the Appellants will advise the Court on that date that they are ready to obtain a new appeal date, or wish to discontinue their appeals.
(4) Pursuant to s 49(4) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) the Prosecutor is entitled to costs thrown away in the sum of $1500.
Catchwords: NOTICE OF MOTION — vacation of hearing date for sentencing appeal — termination of solicitor’s retainer — Prosecutor’s costs thrown away
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 31, 40, 49 Local Land Services Act 2013 (NSW), s 60N
Cases Cited: Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Edenmore Farms Pty Ltd; Keelendi Farms Pty Ltd; TJ O'Brien Investments Pty Ltd; O'Brien [2022] NSWLEC 63
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Midwest Academy Pty Ltd (Appellant in proceeding 2025/00337776) (Applicant on the motion)
Maroun Akkari (Appellant in proceeding 2025/00337850) (Applicant on the motion)
Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Prosecutor) (Respondent on the motion)
Representation: Counsel:
I Jabbour (solicitor) (Appellants)
Z Shahnawaz (Prosecutor)
Solicitors:
Macquarie Law Group (Appellants)
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Prosecutor)
File Number(s): 2025/00337776
2025/00337850
Publication restriction: Nil
The proceedings before the Court today involve two appeals pursuant to s 31(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) (Appeal Act) against sentences imposed by the Local Court for contraventions of s 60N(1) of the Local Land Services Act 2013 (NSW) that involved unauthorised clearing of native vegetation.
The first appeal is brought by Midwest Academy Pty Ltd (Midwest). The second is by Mr Maroun Akkari, a director of Midwest. The appeals are listed for hearing before me on Tuesday, 17 March 2026.
The appeals were listed before me this morning by the Respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, that I will now refer to as the Prosecutor. They did so because the Appellants have failed to comply with orders made by the Court on 7 November 2025, including the preparation of an appeal book (now prepared by the Prosecutor alone), and the filing of written submissions.
When the matter was called on, Ms Z Shahnawaz of Counsel appeared for the Prosecutor, and Ms I Jabbour appeared as (in her words) "amicus", for reasons she explained.
The Appellants were called, but there was no appearance by Mr Akkari and none on behalf of Midwest.
Ms Jabbour moved on a Motion in which the following orders were sought:
“1. That the Appellant’s legal representative, Macquarie Law Group, be granted leave to withdraw from acting as legal representatives for the Appellants.
2. That the hearing date of 17 March 2026 be vacated.
3. That the matter be set down for further directions in a date in April 2026.
4. That there be no order as to costs.”
(a) Mr Akkari, despite several requests since September 2025, had not placed his solicitors in funds to act on the appeals; (b) in November 2025, at a time of chasing Mr Akkari up for funds, he indicated that he had been "unwell", but would try and deposit money into trust. Multiple attempts were made to follow up with Mr Akkari in the period between 12 November to 17 December 2025 to no avail, although he mentioned a further medical condition involving his heart; (c) on 29 January 2026, Mr Akkari advised Ms Jabbour that he had been caught driving whilst his driver's licence was suspended. He then deposited funds in relation to that traffic matter, that was brought in the Liverpool Local Court; (d) Ms Jabbour was informed yesterday by Mr Akkari that he is on a waiting list for day surgery, to be performed between 17 to 19 March, in relation to a condition concerning his oesophagus. Attached to Ms Jabbour's affidavit was some medical evidence in relation to this and, in particular, a document concerning an ultrasound undertaken on 12 February 2026, and a chest CT, which mentions an "enhancement" of Mr Akkari’s oesophagus; (e) Mr Akkari has been in disagreement with advice provided to him concerning the appeal, and has now terminated his solicitor’s instructions, including on behalf of Midwest; and (f) because of his proposed day surgery, Mr Akkari will be unable to attend Court on 17 March, and there will consequently also be no appearance for Midwest.
Ms Shahnawaz submitted that the Court had three options:
Dismiss the appeals. In relation to such a course, Ms Shahnawaz referred the Court to s 40 of the Appeal Act, which provides that in circumstances where an appeal is dismissed because of an appellant's failure to appear, the appellant can make an application within 12 months to seek to continue prosecuting an appeal.
Leave the appeals in the list to be heard as listed on 17 March.
Grant an adjournment, and vacate the hearing date for the appeals.
The principles for vacating a hearing date on an application of a defendant (in this case appellant) in a criminal matter are well established. They include the following that are relevant:
(a) in any application to vacate a criminal trial (or, as here, a criminal appeal), the onus rests on the party seeking to vacate the appeal hearing; (b) there is a strong public interest that once a date is fixed for hearing, the appeal should ordinarily proceed on that date without delay. The significance of that is reinforced by the various case management procedures that relate to both criminal hearings and appeals such as this; (c) it will generally not be in the interest of justice to delay an appeal hearing such as this without a good reason; and (d) a belated application to vacate a hearing is a factor that weighs against granting such an order: see Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Edenmore Farms Pty Ltd; Keelendi Farms Pty Ltd; TJ O'Brien Investments Pty Ltd; O'Brien [2022] NSWLEC 63 at [22] to [31] per Robson J.
Of course, as well as all of the above, there is the overarching consideration of the interests of justice.
This is not a usual application to vacate a hearing date. It is made by solicitors whose retainer has been terminated, rather than by or on behalf of the Appellants themselves. I have chosen to treat the matter before me today however as one where, although the Appellants have terminated the retainer of Ms Jabbour’s firm for the purposes of the appeals, they are content for her to seek the vacations of the appeal hearings and move on the motion.
The evidence concerning Mr Akkari's medical condition is also a bit thin. I accept that Ms Jabbour has faithfully and accurately told the Court what she has been told by Mr Akkari, but there is not a great deal of direct evidence concerning the possible medical procedure or day surgery next week. There is also the fact that he has taken no steps to ensure that the case management orders made by the Court on 7 November 2025 were complied with. However, out of an abundance of caution, I decline to dismiss the appeal now, and I will vacate the appeal hearing.
I intend to adjourn the matter for mention before me on Thursday, 2 April 2026 at 2:00pm. On that date, my expectation is that the Appellants will be ready to obtain a new hearing date, and comply with case management orders, or will advise the Court of an intention to discontinue their appeals. I note Ms Jabbour undertook to the Court that she would inform the Appellants of this mention date.
Finally, pursuant to s 49(4) of the Appeals Act, Ms Shahnawaz sought costs thrown away for today, and for the vacation of the hearing for the appeals next week, in the sum of $1500. That seems to me to be a reasonable application, and I am inclined to make such an order.
The orders I make then are these:
That the Appellants' legal representatives, Macquarie Law Group, be granted leave to withdraw from acting as legal representatives for the Appellants.
That the hearing date of 17 March 2026 be vacated.
That the matter be set down for mention before Beasley J at 2:00pm on Thursday, 2 April 2026, with the expectation that the Appellants will advise the Court on that date that they are ready to obtain a new appeal date, or wish to discontinue their appeals.
Pursuant to s 49(4) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) the Prosecutor is entitled to costs thrown away in the sum of $1500.
**********
Time of listing on 2 April amended to 2:00pm.