Ghannam v BB&B Penrith Pty Ltd

The case of Ghannam v BB&B Penrith Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Ghannam, and the first defendant, BB&B Penrith Pty Ltd, with the second defendant being the registered mortgagee of the property in dispute. Ghannam claimed an equitable charge over the property, which the first defendant accepted. The second defendant was excused from appearing due to being the first registered mortgagee. The primary dispute was whether judicial sale orders should be made out of court, given the first defendant's default in previous court orders regarding the agreed sale or refinance of the property. The first defendant's primary argument against the sale was based on an alleged abuse of process.

The court was required to decide whether to make orders for the judicial sale of the property, considering the default of the first defendant and the acceptance of the equitable charge by the first defendant. The court also needed to assess the validity of the abuse of process argument raised by the first defendant. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the second defendant's status as the first registered mortgagee and its excuse from appearing in the proceedings.

The court found that the first defendant's default in adhering to previous court orders justified the making of out-of-court sale orders. The court rejected the abuse of process argument, finding it to be without merit. Given the first defendant's acceptance of the equitable charge and the need to enforce the agreed sale or refinance, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The court ordered that the property be sold by judicial auction, subject to the rights of the second defendant as the first registered mortgagee.

The final orders of the court were that the property be sold by judicial auction, with the proceeds distributed according to the court's directions, taking into account the rights of the second defendant. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing the terms of the agreement and the equitable charge recognised by the first defendant. The orders ensured that the interests of all parties were protected, with the sale proceeding to resolve the dispute effectively.