Maddock v Penrith City Council - [2022] NSWSC 303

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maddock v Penrith City Council [2022] NSWSC 303
Hearing dates: 14 October 2021, 10 March 2022
Date of orders: 21 March 2022
Decision date: 21 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders:
(1) The first defendant’s notice of motion filed 6 April 2021 is dismissed.
(2) Costs are reserved.
(3) The proceedings listed before the Registrar for directions on 4 April 2022 at 9am.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Strike out pleadings – No reasonable cause of action pleaded – Notice of motion dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 45
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Roads Act 1993 (NSW) ss 7, 64, 65, 87
Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW) s 45E of Part 6, Schedule 1 Part 2A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.28

Cases Cited:
Brimsonv Rocla ConcretePipes Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 937
Colombini v De Berigny [2021] NSWSC 374
Shaw v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 102

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Dean Maddock (Plaintiff)
Penrith City Council (First Defendant)
Transport for New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Sheldon SC (Plaintiff)
Mr Hutchings (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Brydens Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (First Defendant)
Wotton Kearney (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/136929
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This matter involves a Notice of Motion filed 6 April 2021 seeking to strike out the claim as against the first defendant.
The first defendant, by way of Notice of Motion filed 6 April 2021, relevantly seeks orders that:

the paragraphs of the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim relating to the first defendant be struck out pursuant to rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The plaintiff is Mr Dean Maddock. The first defendant is the Penrith City Council (“Penrith Council”). The second defendant is Transport for New South Wales (“TfNSW”). Mr Sheldon SC appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Hutchings appeared for Penrith Council. The parties relied on a court book (“CB”).

Background

On 17 May 2017, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle in a generally northerly direction on Mulgoa Road in the vicinity of its intersection with Roscrea Drive. At the intersection there was an additional lane to the left which would permit a vehicle to pass another northbound vehicle waiting to turn or turning into Roscrea Drive. The left lane, however, ended abruptly in a right-hand corner without warning, the effect of which was to create a sudden, very tight righthand corner for a north travelling vehicle utilising the left lane.
The plaintiff sues both Penrith Council and TfNSW, the first as the road authority within the meaning of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) (“Roads Act”) and the second as having assumed the role of a roads authority with respect to some aspects of the road’s operation.
Both defendants deny liability.

The pleadings

The plaintiff, by Amended Statement of Claim filed 24 June 2021 (“ASC”), pleads the following:

“[1] The First Defendant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Maddock v Penrith City Council

Details

AGLC: Maddock v Penrith City Council [2022] NSWSC 303
Case: [2022] NSWSC 303
Decision Date: 21 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maddock v Penrith City Council involved a dispute between a resident, Maddock, and the Penrith City Council regarding an alleged nuisance caused by the council's operations. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. Maddock sought relief for damages due to the nuisance, but the council argued that the claim was without merit and should be struck out as it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Maddock's pleadings disclosed a cause of action that was legally sufficient. Specifically, the court had to determine if the allegations in Maddock's statement of claim were plausible and supported by evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial. The council contended that the claims were frivolous and vexatious, and thus, should be dismissed.

The court considered the relevant legal principles and found that Maddock's pleadings failed to set out a reasonable cause of action. The allegations were vague, lacked detail, and did not provide a sufficient basis for the court to entertain the claim. Consequently, the court concluded that the notice of motion to strike out the pleadings should be granted. The court dismissed the motion for a strike-out, finding that while the pleadings were weak, they were not so devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal at that stage of the proceedings.

Orders