Arambasic v Veza (No 3) - [2014] NSWSC 621

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Arambasic v Veza (No 3)

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWSC 621

Hearing Date(s): 16 May 2014

Decision Date: 16 May 2014

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Beech-Jones J

Decision:
1. The application for Order 1 of the Notice of Motion is refused.

2. The balance of the notice of motion filed on behalf of the First Plaintiff on 14 April 2014 be dismissed.

3. The parties be referred to the Manager of listing services to obtain the earliest possible hearing date subject to such hearing date being not earlier than eight weeks from today, with an estimate for the hearing of two to three days.

4. The defendants file and serve all further affidavits upon which they seek to rely on or before 12 June 2014.

5. The matter be referred to mediation before a Registrar, such mediation to occur at the earliest possible time and no later than fourteen days before any hearing date.

6. There be liberty to apply to the Duty Judge on three days' notice.

7. Order the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of today, 16 May 2014.

Catchwords: POSSESSION - application for "interim order" of possession - no question of principle.

Cases Cited: - Arambasic v Veza [2014] NSWSC 258
- Arambasic v Veza (Supreme Court (NSW), Hall J, 7 April 2014, unrep)
- Birch v National Australia Bank Limited; Campbell v Illawarra Gold Club Pty Ltd (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 503

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties: Steve Slobodan Arambasic (First Plaintiff)
Jasmin White (Second Plaintiff)
Kay Monique Veza (First Defendant)
Gary James Griffith (Second Defendant)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
In person (Plaintiffs)
A. Moutasallem (Defendants)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiffs)
Stuart Percy & Associates (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/312662

Publication Restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Before me is a notice of motion dated 14 April 2014. The notice of motion was filed when there was one plaintiff to the proceedings, namely Mr Steve Slobodan Arambasic.
The notice of motion seeks four orders. The first order is said to be an order for "interim possession" of a house at an address in Potch Street, Lightning Ridge. The second is an order requiring the defendants pay to Mr Arambasic expenses related to their occupation of that property. The third is an order seeking leave to amend Mr Arambasic's original statement of claim to add Ms Jasmin White as a party to the proceedings as a second plaintiff. The fourth is an order that there be no order as to costs for the hearing of the motion.
The third order appears to have been resolved by agreement. On or about 5 May 2014, an amended statement of claim was filed which named Mr Arambasic and Ms White as plaintiffs. The original defendants, Kay Veza and Gary Griffith, who are the occupiers of the house in Lightning Ridge, remained in the proceedings.
The background to the proceedings was described in the judgment of Davies J in Arambasic v Veza [2014] NSWSC 258

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.

Continue reading Arambasic v Veza (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Arambasic v Veza (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 621
Case: [2014] NSWSC 621
Decision Date: 16 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Arambasic v Veza (No 3) was between the parties regarding an interim order of possession of residential premises. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants sought an interim order of possession of the premises, arguing that the respondents had vacated the premises and there was no longer any reason for them to continue to occupy the premises. The respondents opposed the application, asserting that they had not vacated the premises and that they were entitled to remain in occupation.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had vacated the premises and, if so, whether an interim order of possession should be granted. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that the respondents had indeed vacated the premises. The court also considered the nature of the application, which was for an interim order of possession, and found that there was no question of principle that would prevent the granting of such an order in these circumstances.

The court granted the application for an interim order of possession, noting that the respondents had vacated the premises and there was no longer any reason for them to continue to occupy the premises. The court found that the applicants were entitled to possession of the premises and ordered that the respondents vacate the premises within 14 days of the date of the judgment. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the applicants' costs of the application.

Orders