Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Argeetes - [2025] NSWSC 812

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Argeetes [2025] NSWSC 812
Hearing dates: 11 July 2025
Date of orders: 11 July 2025
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J (as Duty Judge)
Decision:
(1) Decline to make the orders sought in the notice of motion tonight.
(2) The notice of motion remains on foot and the matter is adjourned to Monday 14 July 2025 at 10.00am for mention only before the Duty Judge.

Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW – judgment for possession of real property – writ of possession – ejection of family from home – application to stay judgment, writ and ejection – application made after hours and ex parte – plaintiff’s right to be heard – hardship to family – where emergency accommodation secured – relevant considerations and categories of cases – attempt to re-finance – relief declined in the interim and matter placed in duty list on Monday to enable plaintiff to be advised of the application

Legislation Cited:
N/A

Cases Cited:
GE Personal Finance Pty Limited v Smith [2006] NSWSC 889

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Haris Peter Argeetes (First Defendant)
Sophia Argeetes (Second Defendant)
Representation: Plaintiff (not represented)
First Defendant (in person)

File Number(s): 2024/00462281
Publication restriction: N/A

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is a notice of motion in proceedings that were determined by the Court in January and May of this year. The motion seeks a stay of orders made on 21 January 2025 for possession of real estate at 11 Walter Street, Mortdale, and that there be a stay of a writ of possession ordered on 20 May 2025 relating to that same piece of real estate. A third order is in these terms:

“The second defendant and I [that is, the two defendants in the case], are granted a stay of the eviction of 11 Walter Street, Mortdale”.

That eviction was affected today, Friday 7 July 2025, by the sheriff in accordance with the Court’s orders.
The circumstances of the application are plainly urgent. Accordingly, the Court constituted itself – that being me as Duty Judge – just after 5.00pm following an approach by the two defendants to the Duty Registrar a little earlier in the afternoon. The time is now 6.30pm, and I have heard submissions from the first defendant, Haris Peter Argeetes, who is the father of two children whose family was evicted from their home in Mortdale earlier today.
The background to the case is important. The statement of claim was filed on 12 December 2024 by the plaintiff, Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd, and that statement of claim sought judgment for possession of the land at 11 Walter Street, Mortdale. Judgment was entered on 21 January 2025, no doubt following defaults in the payment of the mortgage. There has been, therefore, over five months for the application to stay that judgment or order for possession to have been made, and yet it…

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 Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd v Argeetes 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 812
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved a dispute between Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd and Argeetes, where the plaintiff sought judgment for possession of a property, leading to the potential ejection of the family residing there. The case was heard in the relevant court. The primary issue before the court was whether the writ of possession and the subsequent ejection of the family should be stayed, considering the application was made after hours and ex parte. The court also had to determine the implications of the plaintiff’s right to be heard, the potential hardship to the family, and the fact that emergency accommodation had already been secured.

The court examined the circumstances under which an application to stay a writ of possession could be considered, particularly focusing on the timing and manner of the application. It deliberated on the importance of ensuring the plaintiff’s right to be heard and weighed this against the hardship that the family might face if ejected. Additionally, the court considered the relevance of securing emergency accommodation and the categories of cases where relief might be granted. Ultimately, the court declined to provide interim relief and instead decided to place the matter in the duty list on the following Monday, allowing the plaintiff to be informed of the application and have an opportunity to respond.

The court's decision was grounded in the need to balance the rights of both parties. It recognised the urgency of the situation but also emphasised the procedural fairness required in such matters. By scheduling the matter for the next duty list, the court ensured that the plaintiff would be adequately informed and could present their case, thereby upholding the principles of justice and due process.

The court's final order was to decline the interim relief requested by the defendant and to place the matter in the duty list on the next available Monday, ensuring that the plaintiff would be given notice of the application and could participate in the proceedings. This decision aimed to provide a fair resolution while addressing the immediate concerns of both parties involved.

Orders