Monetary Solutions Pty Ltd v Bell Building Projects Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWSC 1231

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Monetary Solutions Pty Ltd v Bell Building Projects Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1231
Hearing dates: 8 October 2025
Date of orders: 20 October 2025
Decision date: 20 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
(1) Judgment against the first, second and third defendants in the sum of $1,255,156.49 (inclusive of interest).
(2) Pursuant to s 101(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 that interest be payable on the judgment at the rate of 24% per annum.
(3) The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on an indemnity basis.

Catchwords:
LAND LAW — loan agreement — default — claim for monetary judgment — whether second and third defendant personally guaranteed loan amounts — whether guarantee vitiated for lack of consent

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 101
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 57

Cases Cited:
Canty v Paperlinx Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 309
Lee v ATL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 327
TW Timber Treatment Pty Limited v Giddings [2022] VSCA 147

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Monetary Solutions Pty Ltd (ACN 078 955 110) (First Plaintiff)
Priscilla Georgia Stamatakos (Second Plaintiff)
Bell Building Projects Pty Ltd (ACN 163 658 080) (First Defendant)
Jason Warwick Bell (Second Defendant)
Diana Nabasuta Bell (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Young SC (Plaintiffs)
J O’Sullivan (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Nugent Wallman & Carter (Plaintiffs)
& Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2024/00418597
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The plaintiffs seek monetary judgment against the three defendants arising from their default to a loan agreement and two subsequent variations to that agreement.
The loan was secured by an unregistered third mortgage over a property in Collaroy (“the Collaroy Property”). The loan fell to be repaid on 19 February 2023. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs failed to pay any part of the loan on or before that date and remain in default up to the present day. Indeed, little is in dispute between the parties. I am indebted to Mr O’Sullivan who appeared on behalf of the defendants and to Mr Young SC who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs for the collaborative and efficient manner in which they conducted the proceedings.

Evidence

The plaintiffs read the following affidavits in the proceedings, without objection:-

Priscilla Stamatakos sworn on 16 April 2024;

James Barton Carter sworn on 16 April 2025 (together with exbibit JBC-1);

George Koovousis sworn on 16 April 2025 (together with exhibit GK-1); and

George Koovousis sworn on 23 September 2025.

The defendants relied on no evidence.

Background

The following can be gleaned from the pleadings and the affidavits read in the proceedings.
The plaintiffs in the proceedings are Monetary Solutions Pty Ltd (the first plaintiff) and Priscilla Stamatakos (the second plaintiff). Ms Stamatakos is a client of Monetary Solutions, a mortgage broker who arranges loans between private individuals willing to loan money on security of a mortgage to borrowers.
The defendants in these proceedings are Bell Building Projects Pty Ltd (the first…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Monetary Solutions Pty Ltd v Bell Building Projects 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: [2025] NSWSC 1231
Decision Date: 20 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Monetary Solutions Pty Ltd v Bell Building Projects Pty Ltd, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the second and third defendants had personally guaranteed loan amounts. The plaintiff, Monetary Solutions, sought a monetary judgment against the defendants, Bell Building Projects and others, due to alleged default on a loan agreement. The defendants contended that any guarantees they had provided were not valid as they were given without their consent. The court was required to decide whether the personal guarantees were enforceable and whether the lack of consent vitiated the guarantees.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the second and third defendants had indeed provided personal guarantees for the loan amounts. The court also needed to determine if the lack of consent to the guarantees rendered them invalid. The court considered whether the defendants had authority to enter into the guarantees on behalf of the plaintiff and whether the guarantees were valid under Australian contract law. The court further examined the circumstances surrounding the provision of the guarantees and the relationship between the parties at the time.

In its judgment, the court held that the second and third defendants had indeed provided personal guarantees for the loan amounts. The court found that the lack of consent did not vitiate the guarantees as the defendants had the authority to enter into the guarantees. The court reasoned that the guarantees were valid and enforceable, as the defendants had the necessary authority to bind the plaintiff to the terms of the guarantees. The court also noted that the relationship between the parties did not impact the validity of the guarantees. As a result, the court granted the plaintiff's claim for a monetary judgment against the defendants.

Orders