Azzi v Omar

Case [2012] FCA 625


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Azzi v Omar [2012] FCA 625

Citation: Azzi v Omar [2012] FCA 625
Parties: SAMIRA AZZI and SIMON AZZI v AZZELDEEN OMAR and MAHMOUD OMAR
File number: NSD 714 of 2012
Judge: EMMETT J
Date of judgment: 29 May 2012
Date of hearing: 29 May 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 19
Counsel for the applicants: IS Wylie
Solicitor for the applicants: Thomsons Lawyers
Counsel for the respondents: RA Parsons
Solicitor for the respondents: Sterling Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 714 of 2012

BETWEEN:

SAMIRA AZZI
First Applicant

SIMON AZZI
Second Applicant

AND:

AZZELDEEN OMAR
First Respondent

MAHMOUD OMAR
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1.The first respondent undertakes to the Court to:

1.1no later than 10am on 31 May 2012, cover or remove all external signs at 43-49 South Street, Granville which contain the Awafi name or the Awafi Rooster Device, and after that time not to display the Awafi name or device on the exterior of 43-49 South Street, Granville.

1.2maintain the interior signage and get-up of the business at 43-49 South Street, Granville as is at the present date;

1.3not display the Awafi name or the Awafi Rooster Device in any media advertising, handbills or like promotion; and

1.4not use the Awafi name or the Awafi Rooster Device in connection with any business other than at 43-49 South Street Granville without first giving sixty (60) days’ notice to the applicants’ solicitors of his intention to do so;

2.The applicants undertake to the Court to:

2.1no later than 10am on 31 May 2012, cover or remove all external signs at 107 South Street, Granville which contain the Awafi name or the Awafi Rooster Device, and after that time not to display the Awafi name or device on the exterior of 107 South Street, Granville; and

2.2not display the Awafi name or the Awafi Rooster Device in any media advertising, handbills or like promotion.

3.The first applicant and first respondent each gives the usual undertaking as to damages.

4.The first applicant and first respondent each gives an undertaking to keep proper accounts and records of the trading at 43-49 South Street, Granville, in the case of the first respondent and 107 South Street, Granville, in the case of the first applicant.

5.The above undertakings are to continue until final hearing and determination of the proceedings, or until they are discharged by order of the Court.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

6.The proceeding be listed for further directions at 9.30am on Friday, 1 June 2012 before the docket judge (Rares J).

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 714 of 2012

BETWEEN:

SAMIRA AZZI
First Applicant

SIMON AZZI
Second Applicant

AND:

AZZELDEEN OMAR
First Respondent

MAHMOUD…

Continue reading Azzi v Omar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Azzi v Omar [2012] FCA 625
Case
[2012] FCA 625
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Azzi v Omar was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose between the plaintiff, Mr Azzi, and the defendant, Mr Omar, concerning a contract for the sale of shares. The plaintiff sought to enforce the contract or, in the alternative, for the court to declare that the contract was valid and binding.

The legal issues before the court included whether the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable, and if the court should make a declaration that the contract was valid and binding. The court had to consider the terms of the contract, the intention of the parties, and whether there was any vitiating factor that could render the contract void or voidable.

The court held that the contract was valid and binding on the parties. It found that the contract had been entered into with the intention of the parties to be legally bound, and there were no vitiating factors present. The court also noted that the contract was in writing and signed by both parties, which strengthened its enforceability. The court granted the plaintiff's request for a declaration that the contract was valid and binding. The court also ordered that the matter be listed for further directions to determine the next steps in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

6. The proceeding be listed for further directions at 9.30am on Friday, 1 June 2012 before the docket judge (Rares J).

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.