Legal Research
Cases
Jazabas v Haddad

Jazabas v Haddad

Case [2008] NSWSC 593 17 June 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Jazabas v Haddad [2008] NSWSC 593

HEARING DATE(S): 27 & 27 May 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 June 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison AsJ

DECISION: (1) The plaintiffs' notice of motion filed 7 January 2008 is dimissed.
(2) The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: LIFT STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - Security for costs

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Fair Trading Act 1987
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (1984) 3 FCR 1
Buckley v Bennell Design & Constructions Pty Limited (1974) 1 ACLR 301
Epping Plaza Fresh Fruit & Vegetables Pty Ltd v Bevendale Pty Ltd [1999] 2 VR 191
Gentry Bros Pty Ltd v Wilson Brown & Associate POty Ltd (1992) 8 ACSR 405; 10 ACLC 1394
Jazabas v Botany Council [2000] NSWSC 58
Jazabas Pty Ltd v Haddad [2007] NSWCA 91
K P Cable Investments Pty Ltd v Meltglow Pty Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 189
Latoudis v Casey (199) 170 CLR 534
Maritime Association Inc (Court of Appeal, 23 December 1992, unreported)
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

TEXTS CITED: G E Dal Pont, Law of Costs (2003) LexisNexis Butterworths

PARTIES: Jazabas Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff)
BAS Developments Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Permtree Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff)
Sam Haddad (First Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
City of Botany Bay Council (Third Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20020/2005

COUNSEL: P E King (Plainitiffs)
G Craddock SC (First & Second Defendants)
G McNally SC (Third Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Cropper Parkhill (Plaintiffs)
Crown Solicitor (First & Second Defendants)
Houston Dearn O'Connor (Third Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

TUESDAY, 17 JUNE 2008

20020/2005 - JAZABAS PTY LTD v SAM HADDAD
JUDGMENT (Lift stay of proceedings

– security for costs)

1 HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 7 January 2008, the plaintiffs seek an order that, pursuant to s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, the order staying these proceedings made on 9 June 2006 be removed or lifted on the grounds “that all the persons interested in the companies which are the plaintiffs have given a personal undertaking to meeting the costs of the defendants in the event that the defendants obtain an order for costs should the proceedings prove unsuccessful.”

2 The first plaintiff is Jazabas Pty Ltd (“Jazabas”). The second plaintiff is BAS Developments Pty Ltd (“BAS”). The third plaintiff is Permtree Pty Ltd (“Permtree”). Stephen Haigh is the managing director of the first, second and third plaintiffs (“the plaintiffs”). The plaintiffs relied on affidavits by Mr Haigh dated 15 November 2005, 14 December 2005 and 7 January 2008 and affidavits of John McCracken dated 22 May 2008 and Patrick Campion dated 6 July 2005. The first defendant is Sam Haddad (“Mr Haddad”). The second defendant is the State of New South Wales…

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 Jazabas v Haddad

Details

AGLC: Jazabas v Haddad [2008] NSWSC 593
Case: [2008] NSWSC 593
Decision Date: 17 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Jazabas, sought a lift of a stay of proceedings against the defendants, Haddad, and others, arguing that the defendants had failed to provide security for costs as required by the Supreme Court Rules. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had been ordered to provide security for costs but had failed to do so, which resulted in a stay of proceedings. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that they had provided security for costs and that the plaintiffs were attempting to delay the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the defendants had indeed provided security for costs as ordered and, if not, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a lift of the stay of proceedings. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Rules. The court also considered the principles of equity and fairness in its decision-making process.

The court found that the defendants had not provided security for costs as ordered and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a lift of the stay of proceedings. The court noted that the defendants had provided some evidence of security for costs, but it was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court Rules. The court also found that the plaintiffs had a strong case and that the defendants' failure to provide security for costs had caused unnecessary delay and expense. The court therefore lifted the stay of proceedings and ordered the defendants to provide adequate security for costs within a specified time frame.

In conclusion, the court granted the plaintiffs' application to lift the stay of proceedings and ordered the defendants to provide adequate security for costs. The court emphasised the importance of complying with court orders and the need to avoid unnecessary delays and expenses in litigation. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that parties to litigation comply with court orders and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders