National Australia Bank Ltd v Hookham

[2015] NSWSC 1373

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	National Australia Bank Ltd v Hookham [2015] NSWSC 1373
Hearing dates:	18 September 2015
Date of orders:	18 September 2015
Decision date:	18 September 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Davies J
Decision:	1. Defence of Sheryl Robyn Hookham filed 5 June 2015 struck out. 2. All defences and cross-claims to be filed by 23 October 2015. Plaintiff granted leave to move for default judgment against any Defendant who has not filed defences by that date.
Catchwords:	REAL PROPERTY – mortgages – default – defence not properly pleaded – defence struck out
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	RE PROCEEDINGS 2014/272975: National Australia Bank Ltd (Plaintiff) Ian Malcolm Lawrence Hookham (First Defendant) Sheryl Robyn Hookham (Second Defendant)   RE PROCEEDINGS 2014/272968: National Australia Bank Ltd (Plaintiff) Catherine Lynda Hookham (First Defendant) Kane Matthew Lintern (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: D Turner (Plaintiff) N Potts (Ian Hookham) N Allan (Catherine & Sheryl Hookham) No appearance (Kane Matthew Lintern)   Solicitors: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Plaintiff) Glenn R Walters & Co (Ian Hookham) Macedone Legal (Catherine & Sheryl Hookham) No appearance (Kane Matthew Lintern)
File Number(s):	2014/272975 & 2014/272968

Judgment

1. These are two sets of proceedings brought by the Bank against various members of the Hookham family and an associated person. I note that the Statements of Claim were filed in September last year. The matters have proceeded very slowly, partly because until recently none of the Defendants had been legally represented.

2. Sheryl Hookham filed a Defence on 5 June 2015. That Defence does not contain proper pleading to the allegations made against it. Many of the paragraphs in the Statement of Claim are answered by saying, "The Defendants acknowledge the assertions contained" in the particular paragraph being responded to. The denials of other paragraphs contain what are said to be particulars in this form:

The plaintiff has been overpaid by the defendant in the sum of $502,000.

No other particulars are provided.

3. Mr Ian Hookham, despite appearing before me on 31 July 2015 and telling me that he would be obtaining legal assistance, did not appear on the last occasion at all. This morning Mr Potts, of counsel, has appeared for him, having only been instructed in the last day and I understand his solicitor was also only instructed in the last day by Ian Hookham.

4. There is no appearance at all for Kane Lintern and there has not been at any stage since I have been case-managing these proceedings.

5. On the last occasion Catherine Hookham was ordered to serve any defence and cross-claim before 11 September 2015. That has not happened.

6. In my opinion, the Defence filed by Sheryl Hookham ought to be struck out. As I have said, it does not plead properly to the matters pleaded against her and apart from a general understanding that she is saying in some manner the Plaintiff has been overpaid, it is not clear from the Defence filed what her defence is to the claim. Being overpaid at some point does not necessarily mean that she was not in default in a way that would justify possession being granted.

7. The Defence of 5 June 2015 filed by Sheryl Hookham is struck out.

8. All of the Defendants, except Kane Lintern, are to file and serve defences and any cross-claims they seek to bring by Friday, 23 October 2015. In respect of any defendant who has not filed and served a defence by 23 October 2015, the Plaintiff will be free to move to default judgment without further order of the Court. Kane Lintern is in default of appearance. The Plaintiff is free to obtain default judgment against him.

**********

Decision last updated: 05 October 2015