Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) - [2016] NSWSC 491

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491
Hearing dates: 10 March 2016
Decision date: 22 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The notices of motion of Ms Young of 5 September 2015, 13 October 2015, and 2 February 2016 are dismissed.
(2) Ms Young must pay the costs of Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales and the State of New South Wales of those three motions.
(3) The amended defence of 10 July 2014 and amended cross-claim of Ms Young of 20 November 2015 are struck out.
(4) Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales and the State of New South Wales must not apply for default judgment before 8 weeks from today; that is, before 17 June 2016.
(5) Ms Young must apply to a judge of this Court for leave to file any further pleading in either of the proceedings in this Court.
(6) Any such application must be by way of a filed and served notice of motion, with affidavit evidence in support, and include drafts of all pleadings proposed to be filed.
(7) Ms Young must pay the costs of Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales and the State of New South Wales of the notice of motion of 22 February 2016.
(8) The matter is listed before the Common Law Registrar at 9 AM two weeks from today; that is, on 6 May 2016.

Catchwords: CIVIL – motion seeking default judgment – defence not filed after proceedings stayed – motion seeking interim damages – motion seeking costs of previous motion to do with court book – motion seeking gross sum costs order, payable forthwith – motion to strike out pleadings
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(4)(c)
Cases Cited: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918
Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944
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; 2013/249441

Judgment

Introductory matters

On 10 March 2016, I heard three motions of Ms Maureen Young pertaining to her litigation with the Roads and Maritime Services of New South Wales (RMS) and the State of New South Wales. On the same day, I heard a motion brought by the defendants seeking orders against the plaintiff. I reserved my judgment with regard to all four motions.
Ms Young was unrepresented before me, though there is some evidence that she has received and paid for legal advice in the past.
Although Ms Young has played different roles in different parts of the litigation, it is convenient to refer to her as the plaintiff in this judgment. It is also convenient to refer compendiously to the defendants as “RMS”, unless the context requires greater discrimination between the two of…

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 3) 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: [2016] NSWSC 491
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Young versus Roads and Maritime Services, the plaintiff sought a default judgment against the defendant due to the defendant's failure to file a defence after the proceedings were stayed. The dispute centred around the consequences of the defendant's procedural neglect in the context of ongoing litigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to a default judgment, interim damages, and costs associated with the previous motion. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's application for gross sum costs, payable forthwith, was justified, and whether the defendant's pleadings should be struck out due to their non-compliance with procedural requirements.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a default judgment as the defendant had not filed a defence despite the proceedings being reactivated. Regarding the interim damages and costs for the previous motion, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to these as the defendant's procedural failures warranted such relief. The application for gross sum costs, payable forthwith, was also granted due to the defendant's persistent non-compliance. Lastly, the court decided to strike out the defendant's pleadings as they were deemed to be an abuse of the court process.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion for default judgment, interim damages, and the gross sum costs, payable forthwith. Furthermore, the defendant's pleadings were struck out, and the defendant was directed to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion to strike out.

Orders