Young v Racing NSW [2021] NSWCA 241

Young v Racing NSW [2021] NSWCA 241

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no reasonable grounds, the allegations of discrimination and denial of procedural fairness were baseless, there was no statutory or common law right of action disclosed, and the proceedings were a collateral attack on a final District Court decision, constituting an abuse of process.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Gary Young; First Respondent: Racing NSW / Racing NSW Country; Second Respondent: Casino Racing Club Ltd; Third Respondent: Richmond Valley Council; Fourth Respondent: State of New South Wales; Fifth Respondent: District Court of NSW; Sixth Respondent: YPOL Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Swaab Attorneys
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Disability Discrimination, Procedural Fairness, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Discrimination Law Leave to Appeal Disability Discrimination Procedural Fairness Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Gary Young

Applicant

Racing NSW / Racing NSW Country

First Respondent

Casino Racing Club Ltd

Second Respondent

Richmond Valley Council

Third Respondent

State of New South Wales

Fourth Respondent

District Court of NSW

Fifth Respondent

YPOL Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Swaab Attorneys

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Young was denied procedural fairness in District Court proceedings due to hearing disability
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were a collateral attack/abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no reasonable grounds, the allegations of discrimination and denial of procedural fairness were baseless, there was no statutory or common law right of action disclosed, and the proceedings were a collateral attack on a final District Court decision, constituting an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.