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

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

The claims against the State disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were manifestly groundless because the claimed lands were not relevantly owned by the State: the public roads had vested in the local council and there was no evidence of later transfer to the Crown or statutory closure. The amended claims against the State, including the adverse possession and asserted public interest causes of action, were therefore bound to fail and should be summarily dismissed under UCPR r 13.4(1)(b).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Claim to Possessory Title by Adverse Possession Over Land / Notice of Motion by the Second Defendant for Summary Dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 13.4(1)(b), Alternatively Strike Out Under R 14.28
Outcome
Proceedings summarily dismissed against the second defendant State of New South Wales.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'adverse Possession' 'possessory Title' 'public Roads' 'vesting of Roads in Council' 'crown Land']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law' 'crown Land' 'local Government' 'roads'] ['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'adverse Possession' 'possessory Title' 'public Roads' 'vesting of Roads in Council' 'crown Land']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure; Claim to Possessory Title by Adverse Possession Over Land / Notice of Motion by the Second Defendant for Summary Dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 13.4(1)(b), Alternatively Strike Out Under R 14.28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings against the State of New South Wales disclosed a reasonable cause of action.' 'Whether Parcels 1, 2 and 3 were relevantly owned by the State of New South Wales or vested in the local council as public roads.' "Whether Mr Young's claims to possessory title or related public interest causes of action against the State were manifestly groundless and bound to fail."]

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the State disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were manifestly groundless because the claimed lands were not relevantly owned by the State: the public roads had vested in the local council and there was no evidence of later transfer to the Crown or statutory closure. The amended claims against the State, including the adverse possession and asserted public interest causes of action, were therefore bound to fail and should be summarily dismissed under UCPR r 13.4(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Proceedings summarily dismissed against the second defendant State of New South Wales.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to UCPR r 13.4(1)(b), the proceedings are dismissed as against the second defendant.' "The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings, including its costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 2 February 2021."]