Saba v Aladjadjian

Case [2025] NSWDC 203


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Saba v Aladjadjian [2025] NSWDC 203
Hearing dates: 29 May 2025
Date of orders: 29 May 2025
Decision date: 29 May 2025
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:

1. Orders in accordance with the Order signed and dated 29 May 2025 by Dicker DCJ and placed with the papers.

2. The Notice of Motion filed on 29 May 2025 is stood over before the List Judge on 6 June 2025 at 9:30am.

Catchwords:

FREEZING ORDERS – sale of only real property asset by plaintiff/cross-defendant – ex parte application – risk of dissipation

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law

UniformCivil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Atlanta Building Pty LtdvAbela [2024] NSWSC 1193

KR Properties Global Pty LtdvKazzi [2024] NSWCA 141

MaxRelief USA Incv365 Heath Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 491

PattersonvBTR Engineering Australia Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319

Samimi v Seyedabadi [2013] NSWCA 279

Severstal Export GmBHvBhushan Steel (2013) 84 NSWLR 141

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Issam Saba (Plaintiff)
Garabed Aladjadjian (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Klooster (Defendant)

Solicitors:
New South Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2024/00098171
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE

  1. Before the Court is an ex parte application by way of Notice of Motion by the defendant/cross‑claimant, Mr Gary Aladjadjian, for an asset preservation or freezing order under Part 25.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

  2. In substance, the background to the matter is that there is a longstanding dispute between Mr Aladjadjian, who I will refer to as the defendant, and Mr Issam Saba, in relation to building work performed by Mr Saba for the defendant at a property located at xx Fullagar Road, Wentworthville in NSW. 

  3. The contract between the parties is in evidence before me, and is dated 5 November 2020:  see Exhibit A, p 66. The contract is a Residential Building Head Contract.  The signatures of the parties are at Exhibit A, p 71.  The contract in question has a fixed contract price of $1,020,000 plus GST.  The contract required the builder, the plaintiff, to demolish an existing dwelling, and construct a detached duplex with two granny flats for the fixed price which I have indicated. 

  4. The builder is the sole director and secretary of SFR Construction Pty Ltd.  The builder is also the registered proprietor of a property located at xx Chelmsford Road, South Wentworthville in NSW (Exhibit A, p 47).

  5. There is a lengthy history relating to payments of moneys by the defendant under the contract, and disputes arising between the plaintiff and the defendant.  The defendant paid on account allegedly the sum of $1,098,900 to the builder.  When disputes arose between the parties, the builder commenced proceedings in NCAT for the amount of $85,000.  An extensive Cross-Claim was filed by the defendant in relation to what is said to be defective and incomplete building works in the sum of over $965,000.  Those proceedings were commenced on 22 December 2023:…

Continue reading Saba v Aladjadjian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saba v Aladjadjian [2025] NSWDC 203
Case
[2025] NSWDC 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saba v Aladjadjian involves a dispute over the sale of a property by the plaintiff, Saba, who is also a cross-defendant, and the defendant, Aladjadjian. Saba sought to sell the only real property asset she owned, which was mortgaged to Aladjadjian. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Saba applied ex parte for a freezing order to prevent Aladjadjian from interfering with the sale of the property due to the risk of dissipation of her assets.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was a sufficient risk of dissipation of Saba’s assets that would warrant the issuance of a freezing order. The court also needed to consider the urgency of the application, given that the sale of the property was imminent. The balance of convenience was another significant factor, weighing whether it was more just to grant the order to prevent potential harm to Saba’s interests.

The court acknowledged the urgency of the application, given the imminent sale of the property, and recognised the potential risk of dissipation of assets if the order was not granted. The court considered the evidence provided by Saba and the submissions made by Aladjadjian. Ultimately, the court determined that the risk of dissipation was significant enough to warrant the issuance of a freezing order. The court balanced the interests of both parties and concluded that it was in the interests of justice to grant the order to protect Saba’s assets. The court made orders in accordance with the earlier order by Dicker DCJ and stood over the notice of motion before the List Judge for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Orders in accordance with the Order signed and dated 29 May 2025 by Dicker DCJ and placed with the papers.

2. The Notice of Motion filed on 29 May 2025 is stood over before the List Judge on 6 June 2025 at 9:30am.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.