N and M Investments/Properties v Bao

The dispute in this matter arose between N and M Investments/Properties, the plaintiff, and Bao, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to enforce a mortgage, which had been granted by the defendant, over certain property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the Court was whether the self-executing order, which allowed for the entry of a consent judgment if the defendant did not comply with another order, had become effective following the expiration of the specified time period. The defendant argued that the self-executing order had not been activated and, therefore, the consent judgment could not be entered.

The Court considered the terms of the mortgage and the self-executing order, as well as the relevant case law on the enforceability of such orders. The Court held that the self-executing order was indeed activated upon the expiration of the specified time period, and that the consent judgment could be entered accordingly. The Court further found that the plaintiff had defaulted on its interest payments, triggering the condition of the mortgage that allowed the plaintiff to take possession of the property and eject any occupants. The Court emphasised the importance of the clear terms of the mortgage and the self-executing order, and the need for strict compliance with those terms.

Following the Court's decision, a consent judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the plaintiff to take possession of the property and eject any occupants. The Court also noted that the defendant's failure to comply with the self-executing order had resulted in the plaintiff being able to seek additional costs and interest. The final orders of the Court reflected the terms of the consent judgment and the findings of the Court regarding the defendant's default.