Roads and Maritime Services v Young - [2019] NSWSC 1014

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roads & Maritime Services v Young [2019] NSWSC 1014
Hearing dates: 9 August 2019
Date of orders: 13 August 2019
Decision date: 13 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Summary judgment for the plaintiff for possession of land, for unpaid rent and for an unlawful occupation fee.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — pleadings — application for summary judgment — no reasonable defence disclosed — summary judgment granted
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Roads and Maritime Services v Maureen Young [2018] NSWSC 1867
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Roads & Maritime Services - plaintiff
Maureen Mary Young - defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lane - plaintiff
N/A
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office - plaintiff
Maureen Young - defendant-self represented

File Number(s): 2018/83808
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The plaintiff applies pursuant to r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) for summary judgment for possession of land and for leave to issue a writ of possession. The property concerned is a rectangular area of the seabed measuring 84.7 m2 located approximately 8 m to the north-west of the shoreline at Pearl Bay, a cove on Middle Harbour adjacent to the western shore of the Spit at Mosman.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has been the lessee of the property under a lease executed dated 17 May 2012 for a term of 20 years commencing on 14 December 2009. The defendant has not paid the reserved rent since 1 July 2012. Notice of termination for non-payment was given on 9 January 2018 and the plaintiff says the lease came to an end on that date. The defendant remains in possession.
On 13 November 2017, in separate proceedings removed into this Court from the Local Court, the plaintiff obtained default judgment for unpaid rent accrued up to 13 June 2014. The judgment was for a total of $8,661.14 inclusive of interest and costs. When the defendant applied to a judge of this Division to have that judgment set aside her application was dismissed on 6 December 2017. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on 21 May 2018. The High Court refused special leave on 8 February 2019.
The plaintiff’s present application includes a claim for summary judgment for further arrears of rent, in the sum of $11,395, for the period 14 June 2014 to 9 January 2018. Judgment is also sought for an unlawful occupation fee from 10 January 2018 to the present time.
Rule 13.1(1) of the UCPR requires that a summary judgment application be supported by evidence of the facts on which the plaintiff’s claim…

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 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: [2019] NSWSC 1014
Decision Date: 13 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roads and Maritime Services v Young, the plaintiff, Roads and Maritime Services, brought an application for summary judgment against the defendant, Young, following a traffic incident. The dispute centred on whether Young was liable for the costs associated with a collision that occurred on a public road. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had disclosed any reasonable defence that could be argued in response to the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff argued that Young was negligent in causing the accident and, as a result, was liable for the damages. The defendant did not provide any substantive evidence or argument to counter the plaintiff's claim, leading the court to consider whether a summary judgment was appropriate. The court needed to determine if there was a triable issue in the proceedings.

The court found that Young had not disclosed any reasonable defence in response to the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The lack of a substantive defence meant that there were no genuine issues of fact or law that needed to be resolved in a trial. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The court ruled that Young was liable for the costs associated with the collision, and ordered Young to pay the specified amount to the plaintiff within a stipulated period.

Orders