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

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 525
Hearing dates: 16 April 2021
Date of orders: 12 May 2021
Decision date: 12 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Darke J
Decision:
Order made for summary dismissal of the proceedings against the second defendant.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary disposal – plaintiff claims title by adverse possession over parcels of land said to be owned by the Crown – parcels of land vested in local Council as public roads – plaintiff’s claim against second defendant State of New South Wales bound to fail – proceedings summarily dismissed against second defendant

Legislation Cited:
Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW) s 13.1
Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) s 170
Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 (NSW) s 235B
Local Government Act 1919 (NSW) ss 224, 232
Real Property (Amendment) Act 1921 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) ss 45D, 46B
Roads Act 1902 (NSW)
Roads Act 1993 (NSW) ss 7, 33, 34, 145
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 13.4

Cases Cited:
Agar v Hyde (200) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512; [2001] HCA 29
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; 2010] HCA 28
Vickery v Municipality of Strathfield (1911) 11 SR (NSW) 354
Wonson v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1144
Weber v Ankin [2008] NSWSC 106
Young v Richmond Valley Council [2020] NSWSC 514

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Gary Young (Plaintiff)
Richmond Valley Council (First Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fitzpatrick (First Defendant)
Mr E A White (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Swaab Attorneys (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitors Office (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/368414
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The plaintiff in these proceedings, Mr Gary Young, claims that he has possessory title to three areas of land (referred to as Parcels 1, 2 and 3) that are near the Richmond River at Irvington in northern New South Wales. Irvington is located near the Bruxner Highway between Casino and Richmond. The claimed lands were part of a Crown grant in 1857 in favour of a Mr Clark Irving.
Mr Young has sued the Richmond Valley Council as first defendant and the State of New South Wales as second defendant. The State of New South Wales (“the State”) was added as a party by means of an Amended Statement of Claim that was filed on 8 July 2020.
By a Notice of Motion filed on 2 February 2021, the State seeks the dismissal of the proceedings against it pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”) r 13.4(1)(b) on the ground that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed against it. In the alternative, the State seeks an order under UCPR r 14.28 that the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out insofar as it concerns…

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 Richmond Valley Council (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: [2021] NSWSC 525
Decision Date: 12 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Young v Richmond Valley Council (No 2), the plaintiff, Young, sought to claim title by adverse possession over parcels of land which were said to be owned by the Crown. The parcels of land had been vested in the local council as public roads. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Young's claim was against two defendants: the Richmond Valley Council and the State of New South Wales. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether Young's claim against the second defendant, the State of New South Wales, was bound to fail. The court also had to consider whether the proceedings could be summarily dismissed against the second defendant.

The court found that Young's claim against the second defendant was bound to fail because the parcels of land in question were vested in the local council as public roads. The court held that the State of New South Wales had no interest in the parcels of land, and therefore, the claim against it was untenable. The court reasoned that since the parcels of land were vested in the local council as public roads, the plaintiff's claim against the State of New South Wales was misconceived. Consequently, the court determined that the proceedings could be summarily dismissed against the second defendant.

In conclusion, the court held that Young's claim against the second defendant, the State of New South Wales, was bound to fail. The court found that the parcels of land in question were vested in the local council as public roads, and therefore, the State had no interest in them. As a result, the proceedings were summarily dismissed against the second defendant. The court did not provide further orders as the case was resolved in its entirety with the dismissal of the proceedings against the second defendant.

Orders