Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) - [2015] NSWSC 1944

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944
Hearing dates: 20 November 2015
Decision date: 17 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The Local Court Proceedings 2013/249441 are transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
(2) The defendants must pay the costs of the plaintiff of the notice of motion, such costs to be limited to the amount of out-of-pocket expenses, of a type that would have been recoverable as disbursements if the plaintiff had been legally represented and which she has actually and reasonably incurred.
(3) The matter is listed before the Common Law Registrar for Directions at 9 AM on 1 February 2016.

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – application for proceedings commenced in the Local Court of NSW to be transferred to the Supreme Court of NSW – whether there is sufficient reason for hearing proceedings in a higher court – whether pleading incomprehensible – whether fraud sufficiently pleaded
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 140, 140(4)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 2
Preston v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2011] NSWCA 40
Taheri v Vitek [2014] NSWCA 209
Young v Roads & Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Maureen Mary Young (Plaintiff)
Roads and Maritime Services (First Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lane (Defendants)
Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2014/198018

Judgment

Introduction

This is an application for transfer of proceedings that are currently pending in the Local Court of New South Wales to this Court. It is brought by the plaintiff, Ms Maureen Young, pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). In accordance with the governing section, the question requiring determination by me is whether “there is sufficient reason for hearing the proceedings in the higher court”: s 140(4).
Ms Young was unrepresented, and during the hearing she informed me that she had made enquiries about obtaining pro bono legal assistance, but had been unsuccessful. The application was opposed on a number of bases by the two defendants, who were jointly represented by one counsel.
There was also a notice of motion of the plaintiff listed for hearing before me on the same day seeking various other orders. Each party agreed with my initial thought that the hearing of that motion must abide my threshold determination as to whether or not the proceedings should come before this Court, or remain in the Local Court.
Because of the differing roles played by the parties at different stages of this litigation, I shall refer to the plaintiff as Ms Young. Although there are two defendants, I shall refer to them collectively as RMS, unless greater differentiation is required.
After the hearing concluded, RMS communicated with my Chambers seeking to withdraw a portion of the written submissions that had been…

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 (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: [2015] NSWSC 1944
Decision Date: 17 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2), the respondent, Roads and Maritime Services, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to transfer the proceedings from the Local Court, on the grounds that there was sufficient reason for the proceedings to be heard in a higher court. The applicant, Young, opposed the application on the basis that the pleadings were incomprehensible, and that any fraud had not been sufficiently pleaded.

The central issue before the court was whether there was sufficient reason to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court. The court needed to determine if the applicant had demonstrated a compelling reason for the transfer, and whether the pleadings contained sufficient particulars to allow for a fair hearing. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant had sufficiently alleged fraud in his pleadings.

The court held that there was sufficient reason to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court, as the matter involved complex issues of law and fact that were beyond the scope of the Local Court. The court found that the applicant had adequately pleaded fraud, despite the opposition's claims to the contrary. The court also held that the pleadings, while not perfect, were sufficiently clear to allow for a fair hearing of the matter. The application was therefore granted, and the proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court. The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders