Reda v Reda - [2025] NSWSC 847

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Reda v Reda [2025] NSWSC 847
Hearing dates: 29 July 2025
Date of orders: 29 July 2025
Decision date: 29 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Pike J
Decision:
See [39]

Catchwords:
EQUITY – Trusts and trustees – Court’s supervision of – Appointment and removal of trustees – where three adjoining properties – where trustees appointed in respect of one property – whether to remove trustees in respect of the first property – whether to appoint trustees in respect of the other two properties

Legislation Cited:
Conveyancing Act1919 (NSW), s 66G
Trustee Act1925 (NSW), ss 70 and 71

Cases Cited:
Harb v Harb (2010) 17 BPR 33,295; [2010] NSWSC 1251
Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572; [1936] HCA 13

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
2024/00232784
David Reda (Plaintiff)
Jawad Reda (Defendant)

2025/00188363
Jawad Reda (Plaintiff)
David Reda (First Defendant)
Joshua-Lee Robb (Second Defendant)
Jason Porter (Third Defendant)
2025/00208385
David Reda (Plaintiff)
Jawad Reda (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
MW Young SC / Nicholas Simone (David Reda)
Damien Allen (Jawad Reda)
Michelle Painter SC (Joshua-Lee Robb and Jason Porter)
Solicitors:
Apex Law (David Reda)
Edmond Khoury Solicitors (Jawad Reda)
McInnes Wilson Lawyers (Joshua-Lee Robb and Jason Porter)

File Number(s): 2024/00232784; 2025/00188363; 2025/00208385
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

These sets of proceedings concern three properties - 10, 12 and 12A XXXX Street, Arncliffe.
They are essentially a dispute between two brothers - David Reda and Jawad Reda. Without intending any disrespect or informality, I will refer to each by their given names.
David and Jawad are registered as tenants in common in equal shares of number 10. At all material times David has resided in number 10 and, at least at the present time, lives there with his 25-year-old son.
On 6 December 2024, Peden J made orders pursuant to s 66G of the Conveyancing Act1919 (NSW) (CA) appointing Joshua-Lee Robb and Jason Porter (Trustees) as trustees for the sale of number 10. The orders made by Peden J on 6 December 2024 also included, relevantly:

4. Order that the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, being the occupant of the Land, deliver up vacant possession of the Land within 120 days of the making of this order.
...
8A. Trustee to determine when plaintiff is to vacate the Land and the Plaintiff to vacate when required.
…
13. Liberty to the parties, and to the Trustees, to apply on 3 days’ notice.

On 3 February 2025, order 4 as made by Peden J on 6 December 2024 was set aside.
Although appointed on 6 December 2024, the Trustees were not made aware of their appointment until 21 February 2025 and were not provided with a copy of the orders appointing them until 3 March 2025.
On 5 May 2025, McGrath J made orders by consent in proceedings commenced by David in which he contended that Jawad held 50% of his 100%…

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.

Continue reading Reda v Reda

Details

AGLC: Reda v Reda [2025] NSWSC 847
Case: [2025] NSWSC 847
Decision Date: 29 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the court was asked to consider the appointment and removal of trustees in relation to three adjoining properties. The dispute arose between the parties, Reda and Reda, concerning the management and ownership of the properties. The court was required to decide whether the trustees appointed to manage one of the properties should be removed and whether new trustees should be appointed for the other two properties.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing trustees should be removed from their position in relation to one property and whether new trustees should be appointed for the other two properties. The court had to consider the circumstances and evidence presented by both parties to determine if there was a valid reason for the removal of the trustees or the appointment of new trustees.

In delivering the decision, the court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that there were sufficient grounds to remove the existing trustees in respect of the first property. Additionally, the court determined that there was a need to appoint new trustees for the other two properties to ensure proper management and protection of the interests of the parties involved. The court's decision was based on the best interests of the parties and the need for appropriate oversight and management of the properties.

The final orders of the court included the removal of the existing trustees in respect of the first property and the appointment of new trustees for the other two properties. The court provided detailed instructions for the implementation of these orders to ensure a smooth transition and proper management of the properties going forward.

Orders