Roads and Maritime Services v Young (No 2) - [2018] NSWSC 1176

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roads and Maritime Services v Young (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1176
Hearing dates: 27 July 2018
Decision date: 27 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The notice of motion of the defendant is dismissed;
(2) The defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiff of the motion.

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – claim for possession of houseboat by the plaintiff – notice of motion of defendant to stay proceedings until separate monetary claim is fully resolved – application dismissed
Cases Cited: Young v Roads and Maritime Services (Supreme Court, Schmidt J, unreported, 23 November 2017)
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 291
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 32
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 91
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 106
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Roads and Maritime Service (Plaintiff)
Maureen Mary Young (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lane (Plaintiff)
In Person (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2018/83808
Publication restriction: Nil.

Ex tempore Judgment – revised

I do not believe that I need to be prolix in determining the motion of Ms Young, the defendant, that I permitted to be filed in court earlier this week, and with regard to which I postponed the filing fee. That is not only because a plethora of judgments of this Court, both at the level of the Common Law Division and the Court of Appeal, have described in detail the longstanding litigation between the defendant and the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS), the plaintiff: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918, Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944, Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 291, Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 32, Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 91, Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 106. It is also because, in my own judgment, some years ago now, I reviewed the chronology and set out my understanding of the then-claims of the defendant: see Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491.
Suffice to say, all of this is a dispute about a houseboat and a houseboat site in the vicinity of the Spit Bridge in the inner northern part of Sydney harbour.
In some way that I continue to be unable to understand, the defendant claims that she has suffered an egregious wrong at the hands of the plaintiff, and possibly others.
In the past, the separate claim of the plaintiff as lessor was for unpaid rent for a sum less than $10,000, a claim that, despite its quantum, I permitted to be transferred…

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 (No 2) 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 1176
Decision Date: 27 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roads and Maritime Services v Young (No 2) involved the Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales as the plaintiff seeking the possession of a houseboat from the defendant, Young. The dispute arose when the plaintiff sought to recover the houseboat on the basis that it was abandoned and subsequently claimed it was unlawfully occupying public waters. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues revolved around whether the court should stay the proceedings for the possession of the houseboat until a separate monetary claim brought by the defendant against the plaintiff was resolved. The defendant argued that the two claims were interdependent and should not be decided in isolation.

The court examined the principles of judicial economy and the discretionary power to order a stay of proceedings. It noted that while the claims were related, they were distinct and could be addressed independently without causing injustice. The court held that the defendant's attempt to link the two matters was an attempt to manipulate the judicial process and that there was no substantial risk of injustice if the possession proceedings were allowed to proceed. The court further found that a stay would not serve the interests of justice and would only cause unnecessary delay.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed. The court emphasised that the claims were sufficiently distinct to be decided separately, and any potential prejudice could be managed through the court's case management powers. The decision underscored the importance of treating each claim on its merits and not allowing one claim to unduly influence the resolution of another. The court maintained that such an approach was consistent with the need to ensure efficient and fair judicial processes.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the defendant's notice of motion to stay the proceedings for the possession of the houseboat. The court directed that the matter proceed to final determination without further interruption, ensuring that both parties could address their respective claims in an orderly and timely manner.

Orders