Young v Racing NSW Limited - [2021] NSWSC 556

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Racing NSW Limited and ors [2021] NSWSC 556
Hearing dates: 17 May 2021
Date of orders: 21 May 2021
Decision date: 21 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1)   The proceedings brought by the plaintiff against each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants are dismissed.
(2)   The Registrar is to forward a copy of this judgment to the plaintiff.
(3)   The question of the costs of the proceedings are reserved.
(4)   Absent agreement, each party is to provide written submissions to my Associate within 14 days as to the question of costs, such submissions not to exceed 2 pages in length.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – Whether proceedings constituted an abuse of process – Where plaintiff commenced had proceedings in the District Court – Where those proceedings were dismissed – Where plaintiff did not seek to appeal against that decision – Where plaintiff then commenced proceedings in this Court – Where the effect of those proceedings was to re-agitate the determination of the District Court in the guise of an action in negligence – Where the plaintiff complained of discrimination in the conduct of the proceedings in the District Court – Review of transcript of those proceedings at odds with a complaint of discrimination and at odds with a complaint of a denial of procedural fairness – Where statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action against any defendant – Where proceedings were otherwise an abuse of process – Proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
D’Orta-Ekeniake v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404; [1995] NSWSC 136
Reichel v Macgrath [1889] 14 App Cas 665
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77
Young v Racing NSW [2019] NSWDC 662
Young v Racing NSW (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 785

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Gary Young – Plaintiff
Racing NSW Limited/Racing NSW Country Limited – First Defendant
Casino Race Club Limited – Second Defendant
Richmond Valley Council – Third Defendant
State of New South Wales – Fourth Defendant
District Court of NSW – Fifth Defendant
YPOL Pty Limited – Sixth Defendant
SWAAB – Seventh Defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented – Plaintiff
B McClintock SC and G Ng – First, Second, Third, Sixth and Seventh Defendants
G Bateman – Fourth and Fifth Defendants
Solicitors:
Self-represented – Plaintiff
Swaab – First, Second, Third, Sixth and Seventh Defendants
Crown Solicitor for NSW – Fourth and Fifth Defendants

File Number(s): 2020/290023
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Before the Court for determination are two notices of motion.
The first notice of motion is dated 23 December 2020 and has…

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 Young v Racing NSW Limited 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: [2021] NSWSC 556
Decision Date: 21 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Young v Racing NSW Limited, the plaintiff, Mr. Young, initiated proceedings against Racing NSW Limited in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff had previously brought an action in the District Court, which was dismissed, and subsequently sought to re-litigate the same issues in the Supreme Court under a negligence claim. The central dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff's new action constituted an abuse of process and whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's new proceedings were an abuse of process and whether the statement of claim effectively disclosed a cause of action. The court considered whether the plaintiff's claims were essentially a re-litigation of the previously dismissed District Court proceedings, and whether the plaintiff's allegations of discrimination and procedural unfairness in the District Court were substantiated. The court also assessed whether the plaintiff's new claims in negligence were an attempt to circumvent the earlier dismissal by re-framing the issues in a different legal context.

The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff's new proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were an attempt to re-litigate the same issues that had been decided against him in the District Court, and that the statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action in negligence. The court noted that the plaintiff's complaints of discrimination and procedural unfairness were not supported by the record of the District Court proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and found that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

As a result, the court ordered that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed with costs. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's attempt to re-litigate the same issues in a different court and under a different legal guise was an abuse of the judicial process. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the previous dismissal was unjust or that there were new grounds for relief.

Orders