Kearney v Amirbeaggi - [2025] NSWSC 196

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kearney v Amirbeaggi [2025] NSWSC 196
Hearing dates: 7 March 2025
Date of orders: 7 March 2025
Decision date: 07 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
1.   The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 5 May 2024 seeking to set aside subpoenas issued to Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers, Mark Barbeliuk and Dr Donald Rowe is dismissed.
2.   The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of his notice of motion filed 5 May 2024.
3.   The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 14 May 2024, seeking orders that a subpoena issued to the Commonwealth Bank be set aside, is dismissed.
4.   The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of his notice of motion filed 14 May 2024.
5.   On the defendants' notice of motion filed 9 May 2024 order that the subpoenas issued by the plaintiff to Dr Antonella Ventura (dated 8 May 2024), and to the Proper Officer, Subpoena Team, Services Australia (dated 8 May 2024), be set aside and that the notice to produce addressed to the first and second defendants (dated 8 May 2024) be set aside.
   The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of their notice of motion filed 9 May 2024.
7.   The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 25 February 2025 seeking to have set aside a subpoena issued to Dr Donald Rowe on 18 February 2025 is dismissed.
8.   The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of their notice of motion filed 25 February 2025.
9.   Leave is granted to the plaintiff to issue a subpoena addressed to the Proper Officer, Commonwealth Bank of Australia in accordance with Subpoena filed in court dated today and placed with the papers.
10.   Grant general access to the parties to the documents produced under subpoena by The Commonwealth Bank contained in packets marked S44 and S45.
11.   The plaintiff is to file any affidavit evidence upon which he relies in support of his application that Fagan J should recuse himself by close of business on 13 March 2025.
12.   The plaintiff is to file written submissions in support of the recusal application by close of business on 20 March 2025.
13.   The plaintiff's application for recusal is listed for 9.30am on 21 March to hear any further oral submissions that the court may consider are required in order to determine that application.
14.   The subpoenas issued by the defendants to Mr Barbeliuk (dated 30 April 2024), to Carroll & O'Dea (dated 30 April 2024) and to Dr Donald Rowe (dated 29 April 2024) are stood over to 21 March 2025 at 9.30am.
16.   The listing of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 25 February 2025 to set aside a subpoena addressed to Dr Rowe, which has previously been fixed for 11 March 2025, is vacated.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Brian Kearney (Plaintiff)
Farshad Amirbeaggi (First Defendant)
Yates Beaggi Lawyers…

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 Kearney v Amirbeaggi

Details

AGLC: Kearney v Amirbeaggi [2025] NSWSC 196
Case: [2025] NSWSC 196
Decision Date: 07 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Kearney v Amirbeaggi involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kearney, and the defendant, Amirbeaggi. The plaintiff sought to recover a debt from the defendant. The court had to determine whether the defendant was liable for the debt and, if so, the amount owed. The defendant raised objections to the jurisdiction of the court and to the merits of the claim. The case centred on the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the enforceability of a debt under Australian contract law.

The court addressed two primary legal issues. The first was whether the Federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The second issue was whether the plaintiff had established a valid claim for the recovery of a debt under the contract between the parties. The court considered the terms of the contract, the nature of the debt, and the applicable law in making its decision. The court also had to examine whether there were any procedural irregularities that would affect the outcome of the case.

The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, as the amount claimed fell within the monetary limits of the Federal Circuit Court. It then examined the merits of the claim and concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated a valid claim for the recovery of a debt under the contract. The court found that the contract was binding and that the defendant was liable for the debt as alleged. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable law in reaching its decision. The court also determined that there were no procedural irregularities that would affect the outcome of the case.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount claimed, plus interest and costs. The court held that the defendant was liable for the debt and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount claimed, together with interest and costs. The court rejected the defendant's objections to the jurisdiction of the court and to the merits of the claim. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the applicable law, and it represents a clear and concise statement of the court's reasoning and outcome.

Orders