Aslan v Pucci (No 4) - [2025] NSWSC 1047

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Aslan v Pucci (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 1047
Hearing dates: 10 September 2025
Date of orders: 10 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) The proceedings against the tenth and fifteenth defendants are dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4(1)(b).
(2) Grant liberty to apply to the tenth defendant on three days’ notice on the question of costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – striking out and dismissal – application by the tenth and fifteenth defendants to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to UCPR r 13.4(1)(b) or alternatively have the proceedings struck out pursuant to UCPR r 14.28 – no reasonable cause of action disclosed – proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4(1)(b), 14.28

Cases Cited:
Aslan v Pucci (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 1027

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Dina Aslan (Plaintiff)
Enrico Pucci (First Defendant)
Ross Pucci (Second Defendant)
Alfredo Pucci (Third Defendant)
Nicholas Tropea (Fourth Defendant)
Causbrook & Associates (Fifth Defendant)
Alfred Dean Pucci (Sixth Defendant)
Narghiza Ergashova (Seventh Defendant)
Shirina Holmatova (Ninth Defendant)
Patricia Ficarra (Tenth Defendant)
Campion Realty Pty Limited t/as Unique Property Inner West (Fifteenth Defendant)
Integrated Programmed Services Pty Ltd (Sixteenth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Robertson (Tenth Defendant)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
Stewart & Associates (First, Second, Third, Sixth, and Sixteenth Defendants)
Wotton Kearney (Fourth Defendant)
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Tenth Defendant)
H Dias (self-represented as prior director of the Fifteenth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/186499
Publication restriction: Nil

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Before me today are three motions being:

A motion filed on behalf of the Pucci defendants, specifically the second and third defendants, on 21 August 2025 seeking an increase in the amount which the Pucci defendants could pay for legal expenses from the original sum of $50,000 to $200,000.

A motion filed by the tenth defendant on 29 August 2025 seeking orders that the tenth defendant be removed from the proceedings or that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4 or alternatively struck out pursuant to UCPR r 14.28.

A similar motion filed by the fifteenth defendant (being the real estate agency of which the tenth defendant is a director) filed on 4 September 2025 seeking similar orders to the tenth defendant.

The motion filed on behalf of the Pucci defendants was originally listed before me on 27 August 2025 but was stood over until today for the purposes of allowing the solicitor for the Pucci defendants to adduce further evidence as to his fees and payment of fees.
Subsequent to 27 August 2025 the solicitor for the Pucci defendants, Andrew Stewart, filed an affidavit dated 9 September 2025. In that affidavit he confirms that invoices have been sent but they have not been paid in full. Payments have been made by Rosario Pucci, Enrico Pucci and Narghiza Ergashova, albeit she is no longer represented by his firm.
He says his costs agreement is with Rosario Pucci and Integrated Programmed…

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 Aslan v Pucci (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Aslan v Pucci (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 1047
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1047
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Aslan and others sought to proceed with legal action against Pucci and others. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had breached various contractual obligations and engaged in fraudulent conduct. The tenth and fifteenth defendants, Pucci and others, moved to have the proceedings dismissed or, in the alternative, struck out under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. They argued that the claims were frivolous and vexatious, lacking any reasonable cause of action.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the tenth and fifteenth defendants. The court examined the particulars of claim to determine if they disclosed facts sufficient to justify the relief sought. The defendants contended that the claims were based on unfounded allegations and did not meet the threshold for proceeding. The court's task was to assess whether the claims were so lacking in substance that they ought to be dismissed or struck out.

The court held that the plaintiffs' claims against the tenth and fifteenth defendants did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The allegations were vague, unsubstantiated, and did not provide sufficient details to warrant further legal proceedings. The court concluded that the claims were frivolous and vexatious, and thus there was no reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the proceedings against the tenth and fifteenth defendants under UCPR r 13.4(1)(b). The claims against the other defendants were not before the court in this particular decision.

Orders