Young v Richmond Valley Council [2020] NSWSC 514

Young v Richmond Valley Council [2020] NSWSC 514

The evidence concerning historic ownership, road status and vesting of the claimed land was not sufficiently clear to establish with the required high degree of certainty that Mr Young's claim could not possibly succeed, so summary dismissal was inappropriate. However, the Statement of Claim was plainly inadequate because it did not precisely identify or define the land claimed, appeared to include land owned by the State without joining the State, and did not plead material facts showing when, how and by whom adverse possession was acquired and then by what basis Mr Young obtained title. It therefore did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and tended to cause prejudice,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Claiming Ownership of Land by Adverse Possession / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Under UCPR R 13.4 or Alternatively Strike Out of the Statement of Claim Under UCPR R 14.28, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Summary dismissal refused at this stage; Statement of Claim struck out; leave granted to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim; plaintiff ordered to pay the Council's costs of the Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'adverse Possession' 'public Roads' 'historic Ownership of Land']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'adverse Possession' 'public Roads' 'historic Ownership of 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

Equity Proceedings Claiming Ownership of Land by Adverse Possession / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Under UCPR R 13.4 or Alternatively Strike Out of the Statement of Claim Under UCPR R 14.28, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff's adverse possession claim was manifestly groundless and bound to fail because the claimed lands were public roads vested in the Council." 'Whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out because it failed to identify the claimed lands precisely, failed to join the State of New South Wales despite claiming land registered to the State, and failed to plead material facts showing acquisition of title by adverse possession.' 'Whether leave should be granted to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence concerning historic ownership, road status and vesting of the claimed land was not sufficiently clear to establish with the required high degree of certainty that Mr Young's claim could not possibly succeed, so summary dismissal was inappropriate. However, the Statement of Claim was plainly inadequate because it did not precisely identify or define the land claimed, appeared to include land owned by the State without joining the State, and did not plead material facts showing when, how and by whom adverse possession was acquired and then by what basis Mr Young obtained title. It therefore did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and tended to cause prejudice,...

Court Disposition

Summary dismissal refused at this stage; Statement of Claim struck out; leave granted to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim; plaintiff ordered to pay the Council's costs of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to UCPR r 14.28, the Statement of Claim is struck out.' "Mr Young is to pay the Council's costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 19 December 2019." 'Mr Young has leave to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Any Amended Statement of Claim is to be filed and served by 8 July 2020.' 'The...