Archer Wealth Pty Limited v Makari

[2024] NSWSC 1624

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Archer Wealth Pty Limited v Makari [2024] NSWSC 1624
Hearing dates:	9 December 2024
Date of orders:	9 December 2024
Decision date:	09 December 2024
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt AJ
Decision:	Pursuant to r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), judgment be entered against the Defendant in accordance with the relief sought in Prayers 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for possession of property – where defendant sought leave to file an amended defence – where defendant no longer seeks leave to amend and neither opposes the plaintiff’s orders for possession – order of possession made
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.1
Cases Cited:	Nil
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Archer Wealth Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Anthony Makari (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: M Hazam (Plaintiff) S Scott (Defendant) Solicitors: Parsons and Partners (Plaintiff) Jeresyn Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2024/295763
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: In this matter, a motion was filed for the plaintiff which came on for hearing a week ago, by which the plaintiff sought that judgment be entered in its favour, it having sought possession of the property in issue between the parties.

2. The hearing of that motion was adjourned in circumstances where the defendant had recently retained new legal representation. Consent orders were then made to permit the service of a proposed amended defence, and in the event that there was no agreement between the parties, a motion by which the defendant sought leave to file a proposed amended defence. Pursuant to those orders, the defendant filed a motion on 6 December, and both motions came on for hearing this morning.

3. As the result of affidavits and submissions which were served by the plaintiff and the discussion which that generated between the parties, the defendant is no longer pressing the leave sought by his motion, to file the proposed amended defence. The defendant also no longer opposes the order which is pressed by the plaintiff today, namely, for entry of judgment.

4. Given all that has unfolded in the proceedings and there being no issue between the parties about the defendant’s failure to pay what was due under the loan, as well as the abandonment of the application for leave to file an amended defence and there being no opposition to the order which the plaintiff finally pressed, I am satisfied that the Court's discretion should now be exercised to order that pursuant to r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, judgment be entered against the defendant, in accordance with the relief sought in prayers 1 and 2 of the statement of claim.

5. I order accordingly.

**********

Decision last updated: 18 December 2024