Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWCA 266

Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWCA 266

Leave to appeal was refused because none of Ms Young's proposed grounds had any prospect of success: she established no connection between the property and any treaty matter requiring a stay or High Court determination; her allegations about the lease, credits, asbestos, safety, fraud, misconduct, bias and procedural unfairness were not supported by any arguable basis; and the filing of a further amended cross-claim was properly refused because she did not have leave to file it, while she did not establish error in the refusal to accept the notice of motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court Decisions, Orders and Directions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'summary Judgment' 'unpaid Rent' 'possession of Land' 'mesne Profits' 'amended Cross Claim' 'procedural Fairness and Bias Allegations']
['appeals' 'civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'summary Judgment' 'unpaid Rent' 'possession of Land' 'mesne Profits' 'amended Cross Claim' 'procedural Fairness and Bias Allegations']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court Decisions, Orders and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted against decisions giving summary judgment for possession of land, unpaid rent and an unlawful occupation fee.' 'Whether the proceedings should be stayed because Ms Young asserted tenure rights under a treaty agreement and contended that the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction.' "Whether Ms Young's allegations concerning the lease, credits against rent, asbestos exposure, safety measures, fraud, misconduct, bias and procedural unfairness disclosed any arguable ground of appeal." 'Whether the Registrars wrongly refused to accept filing of a further amended cross-claim and a notice of motion in the 2013 proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of Ms Young's proposed grounds had any prospect of success: she established no connection between the property and any treaty matter requiring a stay or High Court determination; her allegations about the lease, credits, asbestos, safety, fraud, misconduct, bias and procedural unfairness were not supported by any arguable basis; and the filing of a further amended cross-claim was properly refused because she did not have leave to file it, while she did not establish error in the refusal to accept the notice of motion.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']