Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Roads and Maritime Services v Young (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1176 Hearing dates: 27 July 2018 Decision date: 27 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) The notice of motion of the defendant is dismissed; (2) The defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiff of the motion. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – claim for possession of houseboat by the plaintiff – notice of motion of defendant to stay proceedings until separate monetary claim is fully resolved – application dismissed Cases Cited: Young v Roads and Maritime Services (Supreme Court, Schmidt J, unreported, 23 November 2017) Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918 Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 291 Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 32 Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944 Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 91 Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491 Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 106 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Roads and Maritime Service (Plaintiff) Maureen Mary Young (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Lane (Plaintiff) In Person (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2018/83808 Publication restriction: Nil. Ex tempore Judgment – revised 1. I do not believe that I need to be prolix in determining the motion of Ms Young, the defendant, that I permitted to be filed in court earlier this week, and with regard to which I postponed the filing fee. That is not only because a plethora of judgments of this Court, both at the level of the Common Law Division and the Court of Appeal, have described in detail the longstanding litigation between the defendant and the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS), the plaintiff: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918, Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944, Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 291, Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 32, Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 91, Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 106. It is also because, in my own judgment, some years ago now, I reviewed the chronology and set out my understanding of the then-claims of the defendant: see Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491. 2. Suffice to say, all of this is a dispute about a houseboat and a houseboat site in the vicinity of the Spit Bridge in the inner northern part of Sydney harbour. 3. In some way that I continue to be unable to understand, the defendant claims that she has suffered an egregious wrong at the hands of the plaintiff, and possibly others. 4. In the past, the separate claim of the plaintiff as lessor was for unpaid rent for a sum less than $10,000, a claim that, despite its quantum, I permitted to be transferred from the Local Court to this Court, in a nutshell, because the defendant sought to impugn a judgment of this Court: see Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944. 5. After a great many litigious steps, the plaintiff now has a judgment in a specified sum against Ms Young, as lessee, arising from unpaid rent. 6. These separate proceedings are a claim for possession by the plaintiff, founded upon termination of the lease, in turn founded upon unpaid rent and alleged other failings on the part of the defendant as tenant. 7. The defendant has filed a defence and cross-claim to the statement of claim of the plaintiff seeking possession, which was filed 15 March 2018. 8. The latest forensic step is that the plaintiff seeks to have substantial portions of the defence and cross-claim struck out, as I understand it, on the basis of incomprehensibility. 9. On 10 July 2018, Schmidt J set a timetable for the preparation of the hearing of that motion of the plaintiff, and it is clear that that motion will not be heard before, at the earliest, late September. 10. The contention of the defendant today is that these possession proceedings should be stayed, including of course the timetable set by Schmidt J, until the first monetary claim is completely resolved. There are a number of reasons why I reject that proposition, as follows. 11. First, although the subject matter could be said to be broadly the same, in that all arises from the houseboat site, the fact is that they are separate and distinct claims, one for a sum of money, and one for possession of leased premises. 12. Secondly, although it could be right to say that, in a highly attenuated, theoretical sense, the defendant retains some residual rights of appeal within the monetary claim, I think that the overwhelming inference is that, as a practical matter, those proceedings are now concluded. 13. Thirdly, it is noteworthy that stays of the possession proceeding have been sought in the past, again at both levels, and rejected: see Young v Roads and Maritime Services (Supreme Court, Schmidt J, unreported, 23 November 2017) and Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2018] NSWCA 32. 14. Fourthly, this is not a case in which the execution of a writ of possession is imminent in any event; as I have shown by the potential listing date of what I expect to be an early interlocutory dispute, potential ejectment of Ms Young and removal of her houseboat from the houseboat site is a long way off. 15. Fifthly, and finally, I believe that the defendant, who is unrepresented, is capable – in the limited sense of having time and energy available – of conducting the two sets of litigation at the same time. 16. For all of those reasons, admittedly concisely expressed, I respectfully believe that this motion is without foundation, and must be dismissed. [COSTS SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED] 1. Having heard submissions briefly about the question of costs, in my opinion there is no reason why costs of this motion should not follow the event. 2. Accordingly my formal orders are: 1. The notice of motion of the defendant is dismissed; 1. The defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiff of the motion. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 July 2018