Lahoud v Lahoud (No 2)

In *Lahoud v Lahoud (No 2)*, the parties were the Victor Lahoud interests and the Joseph Lahoud interests. The dispute concerned an application by the Victor Lahoud interests to vary or set aside a previous court order. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the court had the power to reopen or vary a final order for specific performance that had already been entered, particularly in circumstances where a subsequent claim for damages arising from the same cause of action was sought. This raised questions about the doctrine of *res judicata* and the principles of cause of action estoppel in relation to final judgments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the previous order for specific performance, having been entered, was final and binding. The court applied the principle of *res judicata*, specifically cause of action estoppel, to prevent the Victor Lahoud interests from pursuing a claim for damages that arose from the same cause of action already litigated and determined by the prior order. The court noted that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide specific mechanisms and time limits for setting aside or varying judgments, which had not been met or were otherwise inapplicable to the present circumstances.

Consequently, the notice of motion filed by the Victor Lahoud interests was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the costs of the Joseph Lahoud interests in relation to the motion.