Roads and Maritime Services v Maureen Young - [2018] NSWSC 1867

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roads and Maritime Services v Maureen Young [2018] NSWSC 1867
Hearing dates: 30 November 2018
Date of orders: 30 November 2018
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) The time within which the plaintiff, the RMS, is required to file a defence to the amended cross-claim filed on 14 May 2018 will be extended to seven days from today, close of business, that being 4.30pm a date to be fixed by the registrar.
(2) The claims against the RMS, the cross-defendant, contained in paragraphs 10 through 23 of the cross-claimant's amended statement of cross-claim filed on 14 May 2018, being paragraph 10 relevant to breach of contract, paragraphs 11 to 18 relevant to deceit, paragraphs 19 to 21(d) relevant to misfeasance, paragraph 22 relevant to equitable claims and paragraph 23 relevant to damages, are struck out pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
(3) I direct the cross-claimant (that is, Ms Young) to pay the cross-defendant's (that is, the RMS's) costs of this motion.
(4) I grant leave to the cross-claimant (that is, Ms Young) to replead paragraph 10 with respect to breach of contract. Any such repleading is to be finalised, filed and served by 6 December 2018. Liberty to replead the remaining paragraphs is refused.
(5) I stand the matter into the Registrar's List at 9am on 6 December 2018 for a timetable to be fixed for the matter to be given some progression.
(6) I give liberty to Ms Young to apply to the Registrar for further time in which to file any amended pleading of paragraph 10.

Catchwords: TORT LAW – amended cross-claim for breach of contract, fraud, misfeasance in public office – equitable claims – claims for damages – application for strike-out of portions of claim - adequacy of pleading – adequacy of particulars – latitude to a self-represented litigant – pleadings incomprehensible – particulars insufficient to establish cause of action – no point of principle
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 231 ALR 277
Maureen Mary Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] HCASL 243
Roads and Maritime Services v Young (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1176
Young v RMS [2018] NSWCA 32
Young v RMS (no 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944
Young v RMS unreported decision SC (6 December 2017)
Young v Roads & Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 238
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 91
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 106
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Roads and Maritime Services (Applicant/Plaintiff)
Maureen Mary Young (Respondent/Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms P. M. Lane (Applicant/Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Applicant/Plaintiff)
Ms Maureen Mary…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roads and Maritime Services v Maureen Young and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 1867
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roads and Maritime Services versus Maureen Young, the dispute revolves around an amended cross-claim filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. The cross-claim includes allegations of breach of contract, fraud, and misfeasance in public office, alongside claims for damages based on equitable grounds. The plaintiff, Roads and Maritime Services, sought a strike-out of parts of the defendant's claim due to inadequacies in the pleadings and particulars, asserting that the defendant's claims were incomprehensible and did not sufficiently establish a cause of action. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court's task was to determine the adequacy of the pleadings and particulars provided by the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the claims were vague and did not provide enough detail to allow the court to determine whether a cause of action existed. The defendant, self-represented, contended that the court should exercise its latitude in interpreting the pleadings favourably. The court had to balance the need for clear pleadings against the principle of providing latitude to a self-represented litigant.

After considering the arguments, the court found that the pleadings and particulars were insufficient. The claims were described as incomprehensible and lacking in the necessary details to support a cause of action. The court held that the defendant's pleadings did not meet the basic standard of adequacy required to allow the claims to proceed. Consequently, the court granted the application for a strike-out of certain parts of the cross-claim, finding that there was no point of principle in allowing the claims to continue without proper particulars.

The final orders of the court mandated that specific portions of the cross-claim be struck out due to their insufficiency. The court directed the defendant to provide more detailed particulars if she wished to pursue the claims further. This decision underscored the importance of adequate pleadings and particulars in legal proceedings, especially in cases involving complex claims.

Orders