Adam v Sara - [2010] NSWSC 530

CITATION: Adam v Sara [2010] NSWSC 530

HEARING DATE(S): 19 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

CATCHWORDS: Procedure - transfer of proceedings from District Court to Supreme Court - whether relief available in District Court

LEGISLATION CITED: Contracts Review Act 1980
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Criminal Code Act 1995 (C’th)
District Court Act
Fair Trading Act
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bushby v Dixon Holmes Du Pont Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 234
Guthrie v Spence [2009] NSWCA 369
Harbourside Catering Pty Ltd v TMG Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 631
Trilogy Corporate Solutions & Anor v Fitzroy Shopfitting & Building Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1026

PARTIES: Nadia Adam (Applicant)
Edward Sara (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/87085

COUNSEL: D Allen (Applicant)
B Pluznyk (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Proctor & Associates (Applicant)
Joseph G Capogreco & Associates(Respondent)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

WEDNESDAY 26 MAY 2010

2010/87085 – NADIA ADAM v EDWARD SARA
JUDGMENT

Before the court is a Notice of Motion in which Nadia Adam (whom I shall refer to as the applicant) seeks the following relief:

“1 The order made ex parte on 27 April 2010 dismissing the Summons be set aside.

2 That the Summons be heard at the same time as this Notice of Motion.

3 Costs.”

2 The matter came on for hearing at short notice for reasons that will become apparent in due course.

3 An affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion was sworn by the applicant’s instructing solicitor, Mr Jim Kekatos. He deposes to the fact that he briefed Mr Damien Allen of counsel to appear on 27 April when the summons was to be heard. He further deposes to the fact that counsel informed him that he had forgotten “to diarise the date” and that as a consequence, counsel had not appeared. There being no appearance on behalf of the applicant when the matter was called on, the summons was dismissed with costs.

4 The relief which the applicant sought in the summons was an order that proceedings which had been commenced in the District Court by Edward Sara (whom I shall refer to as the respondent) be transferred to this Court.

5 In support of the summons the applicant swore an affidavit to which is annexed the Amended Statement of Claim that was filed by the respondent in the District Court. At the heart of the dispute, as best I can understand, is a claim by the respondent for the recovery of money which he lent to the applicant (and others) but which has not been repaid. Pursuant to the Amended Statement of Claim, it is claimed that the applicant, together with her mother and step-father and an…

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 Adam v Sara 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: [2010] NSWSC 530
Decision Date: 26 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adam v Sara, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether the proceedings, which had originated in the District Court, should be transferred to the Supreme Court. Adam had filed a claim against Sara in the District Court, seeking a range of remedies, including both equitable and legal relief. The nature of the dispute involved complex property transactions and allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty. Sara opposed the transfer, arguing that the matters were adequately within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the relief sought by Adam was available in the District Court. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the equitable remedies sought, such as an account of profits and an injunction, required the case to be heard in the Supreme Court due to their nature and the complexity of the issues involved. The court was also required to assess whether the transfer of the proceedings was justified under the circumstances, particularly in light of the potential for significant financial and reputational harm if the wrong court were to hear the matter.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) and considered the principles established in previous case law regarding the transfer of proceedings between courts. It found that the equitable remedies sought by Adam were indeed within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court concluded that the complexity of the property transactions and the need for expert evidence and detailed equitable relief justified the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the matter. Consequently, the court ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court for further determination.

The final orders included the transfer of the proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court, with directions for the parties to file further statements of claim and defence within a specified timeframe. The court also made orders regarding the service of the transferred documents and the preservation of any existing evidence and documents. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that cases are heard in the appropriate court to facilitate a just and effective resolution of the disputes before them.

Orders