Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2025] NSWSC 1206

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1206
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 15 October 2025
Decision date: 15 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Pike J
Decision:
Final orders made – see [20]

Catchwords:
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Final orders – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Nil

Cases Cited:
Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1084
Anson v Anson (2004) 12 BPR 22,303; [2004] NSWSC 766
James v James (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 116

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Costs
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

I delivered my primary judgment in these proceedings on 22 September 2025: see Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1084 (Primary Judgment or PJ).
These reasons assume familiarity with, and maintain the same abbreviations as in the PJ.
In the PJ, I determined that Anthony Hanna is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the Land and that Anthony Hanna holds a half interest in the Land on trust for Mr Abdalla. Orders for judicial sale should be made and the parties should seek to agree orders to give effect to the PJ.
A measure of agreement was reached but differences remained.
These reasons determine the orders to be made to give effect to the PJ.
I have had the benefit of written submissions and draft orders from both parties. Neither party took up the invitation for reply submissions.

Declaration of respective interests

There was no issue that a declaration should be made that Anthony Hanna holds a half interest in the Land for Mr Abdalla.

Who should be appointed trustee?

The parties were agreed that an independent lawyer should be appointed trustee for sale. Mr Abdalla proposed Min Du. Anthony Hanna proposed a regime for the parties to agree on an independent lawyer, failing which one should be appointed by the Registrar-General. The only objection raised to Min Du was the fees she proposed to charge.
Min Du made an affidavit consenting to being appointed and stating that she proposed to charge a fee of $660 per hour and estimated that “such sale would cost in the order of $10,000 to $25,000”. It is this last aspect which appears to have raised the concern for Anthony Hanna.
I see no reason not to appoint Min Du. The objection as to costs can be easily dealt with. I will authorise costs to be charged at $660 per hour and direct Min Du to provide 14 days written notice to Mr Abdalla and Anthony Hanna of the fees proposed to be deducted from the proceeds of sale on account of trustee’s fees. If there…

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 (No 2) 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 1206
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abdalla v Jarvis J Pty Ltd (No 2) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Mr Abdalla, brought a claim against the defendant, Jarvis J Pty Ltd, seeking damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The dispute arose from a commercial transaction involving the sale of a property, with Mr Abdalla alleging that the defendant made false representations regarding the condition of the property and breached the terms of the sale contract.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the defendant had indeed made misleading or deceptive representations, and if so, whether these representations constituted a breach of contract that warranted damages. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages if the defendant was found liable for the alleged breaches.

The court examined the evidence and testimonies presented by both parties and assessed the terms of the contract. It concluded that the defendant had made misrepresentations concerning the property's condition, which were material and induced Mr Abdalla to enter into the contract. The court found that these misrepresentations amounted to a breach of contract. Regarding the measure of damages, the court assessed the loss suffered by Mr Abdalla and determined a fair compensation amount. The final orders reflected these findings, awarding Mr Abdalla damages for the breach of contract and misrepresentation, and ordering the defendant to pay the determined amount.

Orders