Young v Richmond Valley Council

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Young v Richmond Valley Council [2021] NSWCA 255

Hearing dates:

13 October 2021

Date of orders:

26 October 2021

Decision date:

26 October 2021

Before:

Gleeson JA at [1]
Simpson AJA at [2]

Decision:

Leave to appeal refused

Catchwords:

APPEALS — Leave to appeal — where applicant seeks leave to appeal from summary dismissal — where applicant had brought proceedings for recovery of land against party other than the registered proprietor — where no viable claim

Legislation Cited:

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 27(1)

Local Government Act 1919 (NSW), ss 232, 224(3)

Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 45D(3)(a)

Roads Act 1993 (NSW), ss 152D, 152T

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(r)

Cases Cited:

Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69

Mulcahy v Curramore Pty Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 464

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28

The Age Company Ltd v Liv [2013] NSWCA 26

Young v Richmond Valley Council [2020] NSWSC 514

Young v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 525

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Gary Young (Applicant)
Richmond Valley Council (First Respondent)
State of New South Wales (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant self-represented
S Fitzpatrick (First Respondent)
E White (Second Respondent)

Solicitors:
Swaab Attorneys (First Respondent)
Crown Solicitors Office (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

2021/163589

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Equity Division

Citation:

[2021] NSWSC 525

Date of Decision:

12 May 2021

Before:

Darke J

File Number(s):

2019/368414

Judgment

1. GLEESON JA: I agree with Simpson AJA.

2. SIMPSON AJA: On 12 May 2021, in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court Darke J (the primary judge) summarily dismissed, pursuant to UCPR 13.4(1), proceedings brought by the applicant (Mr Gary Young) against the State of NSW (“the State”): Young v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 525. Mr Young now seeks to appeal against the orders so made. He contends that he has a right to appeal because the matter in issue is of or above the value of $100,000: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(r). That contention overlooks s 101(2)(l) by which a judgment or order of the Supreme Court in a Division on an application for summary judgment under the rules requires leave. As an alternative to his primary contention, Mr Young seeks such leave.

3. The issue in the proceedings before Darke J, and in this Court, concerns a claim made by Mr Young in an amended statement of claim filed on 8 July 2020 for orders that would have the effect of vesting in him ownership of three separate (but contiguous) parcels of land at Irvington, on the Richmond River in the north of NSW. Mr Young’s claim is based on what he asserts to be adverse possession over many…