Young v Roads and Maritime Services - [2014] NSWSC 1104

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWSC 1104
Hearing dates: 28/07/2014
Decision date: 28 July 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Justice Garling
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to Ms Young to file in Court the Notice of Motion which is dated 28 July 2014, and which she has signed, and which I have initialled and dated today for proper identification.
(2) Grant leave to Ms Young to file in Court an affidavit affirmed 28 July 2014.
(3) Dismiss the Notice of Motion.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - interlocutory issues - injunctions - restraining defendants from engaging in conduct which constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court - restraining eviction under defaulted lease - validity of lease disputed -whether conduct which would affect the litigation - whether arguable basis for that conduct to occur - no conduct placing occupation in jeopardy - balance of convenience
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Maureen Mary Young (P)
Roads and Maritime Services (D)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (P)
Ex parte (D)

File Number(s): 2014/198018

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Ms Maureen Young applies, ex parte, to this Court by Notice of Motion, which she seeks to file in Court today, for a series of injunctions to restrain the defendant, the Roads and Maritime Services NSW by itself, its servants and agents, from engaging in conduct which constitutes an abuse of the process of this Court, or of the Local Court.

In her Notice of Motion, Ms Young has formulated seven specific orders that she says are justified by the material which she has annexed to her affidavit.

History of Proceedings

Some short background is necessary. I do not suggest that this is a complete recitation of the background.

In August 2013, Roads and Maritime Services, to which I will refer to for convenience as the RMS, commenced proceedings in the Local Court claiming unpaid rental which it asserted was due to it, pursuant to a lease of Lot 1 Deposited Plan 1145276, dated 11 May 2012, in respect of Ms Young's occupation of a houseboat, being houseboat No.8 in Pearl Bay, Mosman.

Ms Young filed a Defence and Cross-Claim in those proceedings in which she denied that she owed any moneys by way of rent to the RMS, and denied that the lease, which she accepts was executed in May 2012, was a valid lease.

In her Cross-Claim filed in the Local Court, amongst the relief she sought was an order of the Court that the lease be held to be void and invalid, and also that an agreement which preceded the issue of the lease, which agreement had been entered into in 2009, was also declared to be void and invalid. The proceedings in the Local Court remain on foot and have as yet not been allocated a date for final hearing.

By a Summons filed on 4 July 2014, Ms Young commenced proceedings in this Court seeking an order that the proceedings in the…

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 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: [2014] NSWSC 1104
Decision Date: 28 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Young v Roads and Maritime Services was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Young, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, Roads and Maritime Services, from evicting them from a property under a lease which was in default. The validity of the lease was contested, with Young arguing that the lease was still in effect despite the default. The defendants maintained that the lease had terminated, and they sought to evict Young from the property. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendants' conduct, if it occurred, would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and whether Young had established an arguable basis for the injunction.

The court examined whether Young's occupation of the property was in jeopardy and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. The court found that there was no conduct by the defendants that placed Young's occupation in jeopardy. Additionally, the court determined that Young had not established an arguable basis for the injunction, as the validity of the lease was disputed, and there was no evidence that the defendants' conduct would affect the litigation. The court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an injunction, and therefore, the application was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of interlocutory injunctions, which require the applicant to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried and a balance of convenience favouring the grant of the injunction. The court held that Young had not met this burden of proof. The court also noted that the validity of the lease was a matter for the substantive proceedings and that the defendants' conduct did not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. As a result, the court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction.

Orders