Boutros v Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Boutros v Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 246
Hearing dates:29 July 2013
Decision date: 01 August 2013
Before: Gleeson JA
Decision:

(1) The applicant's notice of motion filed 18 July 2013 be dismissed.

(2) The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the motion.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - judgments and orders - actions on judgments - stay of orders - r 51.44 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - judicial sale - ancillary orders for possession subsequently made - whether arguable case for appeal
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] NSWCA 130
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Australian Hardboards Limited v Hudson Investment Group [2007] NSWCA 104; 70 NSWLR 201
Guardian Mortgages Pty Ltd v Miller [2004] NSWSC 1236; 12 BPR 98145
Harden Shire Council v Richardson [2012] NSWSC 622
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; 55 NSWLR 737
King Investment Solutions v Hussain [2005] NSWSC 1076; 13 BPR 98296
Mills v Lewis (1983) 3 BPR 9421
Phillips v Walsh (1990) 20 NSWLR 206
Prior v Simeon [2010] WASC 382
Prior v Simeon (No 2) [2011] WASC 61
Re Gordon (1889) 61 LT (NS) 299
Vaughan v Dawson [2008] NSWCA 169
Texts Cited: Wade, "An Equitable Mortgagee's Right to Possession" (1955) 71 Law Quarterly Review 204
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Malke Boutros (Applicant)
Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Westpac Banking Corporation (Second Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
D Allen (Applicant)
M W Young (First Respondent)
M Wirth (Second Respondent)
Solicitors:
Chidiac Legal (Applicant)
Bransgroves Lawyers (First Respondent)
Kemp Strang (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):2013/218731
Publication restriction:No
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9111
Citation:
Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd v Boutros Constructions Pty Ltd and others [2013] NSWSC 976
Date of Decision:
2013-07-09 00:00:00
Before:
McDougall J
File Number(s):
2011/198240

Judgment

  1. GLEESON JA: By notice of motion filed on 18 July 2013, the applicant, Malke Boutros, seeks an order staying orders made by McDougall J in the proceedings below on 9 July 2013. Those orders required (1) that the applicant provide to the first respondent (Nationwide) vacant possession of a property at Croydon Park, within 21 days; and (2) granted leave for the issue of a writ of possession with respect to the property. By Order 3, execution of the writ was stayed until the further order of the Court. (No order permitting enforcement of the writ of possession has yet…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Boutros v Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd 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
[2013] NSWCA 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Boutros v Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd*, the applicant sought a stay of orders made by the primary judge, which included ancillary orders for possession following a judicial sale. The respondents were Nationwide Capital Pty Ltd and another party.

The central legal issue before Gleeson JA was whether the applicant had an arguable case for appeal, which is a prerequisite for granting a stay of a judgment or order under rule 51.44 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW).

Gleeson JA dismissed the applicant's notice of motion, finding that no arguable case for appeal had been demonstrated. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents in relation to the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The applicant's notice of motion filed 18 July 2013 be dismissed.

(2) The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the motion.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.