Young v Roads and Maritime Services

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 32
Hearing dates: 12 February 2018
Decision date: 01 March 2018
Before: Simpson JA
Decision:

(1)  Notice of Motion filed on 23 January 2018 is dismissed;

 (2)  The applicant (Maureen Mary Young) to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – application for stay of judgment pending appeal – no proper basis for stay demonstrated

  PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – application for injunction restraining respondent acting on Notice of Termination – no proper basis for injunction
Cases Cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 238
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] HCASL 243
Roads and Maritime Services v Maureen Mary Young (NSW Supreme Court, 15 December 2017, unreported)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Maureen Mary Young (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
P M Lane (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Not applicable (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/384578
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Date of Decision:
15 December 2017
Before:
Latham J
File Number(s):
2013/249441

Judgment

  1. SIMPSON JA: The dispute the subject of the present application has a long and tortured history. It concerns the lease of a mooring near Mosman in Sydney, on which the applicant, Ms Young, has for many years moored her houseboat. The respondent, Roads and Maritime Services (“RMS”) is the owner and lessor of the mooring. The history of the litigation resulting from the dispute is largely (although not fully) recorded in a decision of this Court given on 1 September 2016: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 238 (“the 2016 judgment”).

  2. The present application was made by notice of motion filed by Ms Young on 23 January 2018, the claims in which are set out at [12] below.

  3. Some appreciation of the history of the proceedings is necessary in order to understand the orders claimed in the notice of motion.

Background and history

  1. There was an earlier round of litigation between these parties which was finalised by a Deed of Release entered on 18 September 2009. A second round of litigation commenced in 2013, with RMS taking proceedings against Ms Young in the Local Court claiming unpaid rent on the mooring. Ms Young filed a defence and a cross-claim, in which she alleged misconduct on the part of RMS and the State of New South Wales. On 17 December 2015 (after many more skirmishes, outlined in the 2016 judgment) Button J ordered that the Local Court proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court.

  2. However, on 22 April 2016 Button J struck out Ms Young’s then current defence and cross-claim. Ms Young unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to this Court against (inter alia) that order. That application was dismissed by the 2016 judgment.

  3. On…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Young v Roads and Maritime Services 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] NSWCA 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Young v Roads and Maritime Services*, the applicant, Maureen Mary Young, sought a stay of judgment pending appeal and an injunction restraining the respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, from acting on a Notice of Termination. The application was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether there was a proper basis to grant a stay of the judgment, thereby preventing the respondent from enforcing its decision pending the outcome of an appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an injunction should be granted to restrain the respondent from acting upon the Notice of Termination.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a proper basis for either the stay of judgment or the injunction. Consequently, the Notice of Motion filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Notice of Motion filed on 23 January 2018 is dismissed;

(2) The applicant (Maureen Mary Young) to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.