Al Shaikhly v Haeri - [2025] VSC 137

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2022 05400

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMAD AL SHAIKHLY & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
RASHA HAERI	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Al Shaikhly v Haeri
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 137

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Reinstatement of proceeding and summary judgment against the first defendant under Settlement Deed — Uncertainty about content of Settlement Deed due to amendments — Held, parties were ad idem as to final terms of Settlement Deed — Application for summary enforcement of Settlement Deed as amended and judgment in favour of plaintiffs granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Ms C Skeoch, solicitor	Aitkin Partners
For the Defendant	Mr S Stuckey KC of counsel	Appian Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Materials relied upon................................................................................................................... 2
Circumstances surrounding the execution of the Second Deed............................................ 2
Legal principles relevant to summary enforcement of settlement agreements................... 7
Ms Haeri’s submissions.............................................................................................................. 10
Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 12
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 15

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This judgment is about the application by Mohammad Al Shaikhly and Zainab Al Shaikhly (the Al Shaikhlys) to reinstate the proceeding against Ms Rasha Haeri for the purpose of entering judgment against her in the amount of $480,000, the settlement sum agreed under a deed of settlement (Deed).

The proceeding has a rather lengthy history.

On 23 December 2022, the Al Shaikhlys commenced a proceeding against Rasha Haeri and Shokriah Saheb Achanghal involving an alleged breach of a loan agreement between Mohammad Al Shaikhly, as lender, and Rasha Haeri, as borrower. Ms Achanghal did not enter an appearance and, on 13 February 2023, the Court gave judgment against Ms Achanghal in favour of the Al Shaikhlys. On 16 March 2023, the Al Shaikhlys and Ms Haeri entered into a deed of settlement (First Deed) to resolve the proceeding under which Ms Haeri was to pay the Al Shaikhlys the sum of $815,000. Ms Haeri did not pay.

On 6 April 2023 the Al Shaikhlys filed a summons seeking judgment against Ms Haeri in the sum of $800,000, on the basis of the First Deed. Ms Haeri defended the Al Shaikhlys summons, alleging that she had entered into the First Deed under duress. The proceeding was set down for trial and referred for mediation. At the mediation the Al Shaikhly’s and Ms Haeri and Ms Achanghal entered into the furtherDeed under which Ms Haeri and Ms Achanghal agreed to pay the Al Shaikhlys the sum of $480,000 in settlement of the proceeding. Clause 3(b) of this Deed provided that, in event of default, the Al Shaikhlys could apply for the proceeding to be reinstated and for judgment in the terms of consent orders signed by the plaintiff (sic) and the first defendant and annexed to the Second Deed.

Pursuant to the Deed, on 3 October 2023,…

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 Al Shaikhly v Haeri 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] VSC 137
Decision Date: 25 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to decide an application by Mohammad Al Shaikhly and Zainab Al Shaikhly (the Al Shaikhlys) to reinstate the proceeding against Rasha Haeri for the purpose of entering judgment against her in the amount of $480,000, the settlement sum agreed under a deed of settlement. The Al Shaikhlys and Ms Haeri had previously entered into a deed of settlement to resolve the proceeding under which Ms Haeri was to pay the Al Shaikhlys the sum of $480,000. Ms Haeri did not pay. The proceeding was dismissed with a right of reinstatement. The Al Shaikhlys applied to reinstate the proceeding so that judgment may be entered against Ms Haeri. Ms Haeri opposed the application on the basis that the Court could not be satisfied that justice can be done in circumstances where the Al Shaikhlys case about how they acquired the rights they seek to summarily enforce keeps changing, that the documents relied upon by the Al Shaikhlys raised extraneous issues that made summary enforcement procedurally inappropriate, and that the Al Shaikhlys were not ready, willing and able to perform their obligations under the Deed. The Court found that the parties were ad idem as to the final terms of the Deed. It was satisfied that the parties had agreed to the terms of the Deed, and that to require pleadings would cause unnecessary delay and cost to all parties. The Court was not satisfied that it was necessary to stay the proceeding until Ms Achanghal was joined. It also found that the Al Shaikhlys were ready, willing and able to perform their obligations under the Deed. The Court granted the Al Shaikhlys application for summary enforcement of the Deed as amended. It ordered that there be judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $480,000 inclusive of costs and interest.

Orders