Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWSC 1084

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1084
Hearing dates: 9 September 2025
Date of orders: 22 September 2025
Decision date: 22 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Pike J
Decision:
Second defendant holds one half of his interest in the Land on trust for plaintiff. Judicial sale to be ordered.

Catchwords:
EQUITY – Tracing – where signature on land transfer forged and initial recipient of land held the interest in land on Black v S Freedman type trust – where land then transferred to third party – whether third party is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – whether order for judicial sale should be made – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 91

Cases Cited:
Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Hanna v Hanna (No 3) [2024] FCA 1171
Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel [2019] FCA 1965
Fistar v Riverwood Legion and Community Club Ltd (2016) 91 NSWLR 732; [2016] NSWCA 81
Golden Mile Property Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Cudgegone Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 89 NSWLR 237; [2015] NSWCA 100
Sze Tu v Lowe (2014) 89 NSWLR 317; [2014] NSWCA 462

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hedra Fayez Nashed Abdalla (Plaintiff)
Jarvis J Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Anthony John Hanna (Second Defendant)
Registrar General of NSW (Third Defendant)
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Allen (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
SKM Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Longton Blackwell (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00024822
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

These proceedings were commenced as long ago as January 2020.
The essence of the relief sought by the plaintiff (Mr Abdalla) is that each of the first defendant (Jarvis J) and the second defendant (Anthony Hanna) hold a half interest in land located at Unit 16/7 Altair Place, Hinchinbrook, New South Wales being folio identifier 17/SP93648 (Land) on trust for Mr Abdalla.
The third defendant is the Registrar General of New South Wales who has not taken an active role in the proceedings. Counsel for Mr Abdalla stated at the commencement of the hearing that he did not know why the Registrar General had been made a party to the proceedings.
The fourth defendant is the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Commonwealth Bank) who is the registered first mortgagee on the title to the Land. On 1 October 2020, Darke J ordered that the Commonwealth Bank be excused from further attendance in the proceedings. This was on the basis, as was noted by Darke J, that the remaining parties agreed that no orders made by the Court would affect the Commonwealth Bank’s mortgage.
The precise reason why the proceedings took so long to come on for hearing was not completely explained although it appears to be primarily as a result of certain related proceedings in the Federal Court of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 1084
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was called upon to determine the fate of a parcel of land that had been the subject of a forged transfer. The plaintiff, Abdalla, sought to trace the proceeds of the land through a series of transactions to establish his interest over the property. The land was initially transferred to an entity that held the interest on a Black v S Freedman type trust. Subsequently, the land was transferred to a third party, Jarvis J Pty Ltd, who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The primary issue before the court was whether Jarvis J Pty Ltd held the property free from any claims by Abdalla.

The court considered the nature of the trust under which the initial recipient held the land, the principles of equitable tracing, and the requirements for establishing the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It was established that the signature on the original land transfer document was forged, and thus the initial transfer was not valid. The court examined the subsequent transfer to Jarvis J Pty Ltd and determined whether Jarvis J Pty Ltd could be considered a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The court held that there were no genuine dealings or considerations that would support the argument that Jarvis J Pty Ltd was a bona fide purchaser. Given the forged nature of the initial transfer, the court found that the equitable interest remained with Abdalla.

In light of the findings, the court ruled that Abdalla's equitable interest in the land had not been extinguished by the subsequent transfer to Jarvis J Pty Ltd. The court ordered that the land be subject to a judicial sale to satisfy Abdalla's claim. This decision underscored the principle that equitable interests cannot be defeated by a forged transfer and that a purchaser who is aware of the equitable interest, or who fails to act in good faith, cannot acquire a better title than the seller. The court's decision ensures that the equitable interest is protected and that the property is used to satisfy the rightful claim.

Orders